Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
AustonT wrote:Basically this is auto insurance round two.
In BC, auto insurance is mandatory for the driver, sort of the same way the ACA is with healthcare. Except the auto insurance is provided by the province (sort of), in the form of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. And it's awesome. Everyone on the road has auto insurance, and I think the price is the cheapest in Canada (considering what is covered). So, to nobody's surprise, my answer to you would be to socialize the entire process. Having trouble with the mandate to buy private insurance because it creates a captive consumer? Then feth the insurance company, and have the government provide it. It'll work out better for the consumer, and there won't ever be a consumer-vs-profit conflict of interest.
I think you're agreeing with me but instead of just saying "yeah, I agree" you used a paragraph. They may ration healthcare in Canada but apparently they don't ration words.
I have nothing to respond with, you magnificent bastard.
whembly wrote: Those who opposes the ACA bill are mostly arguing the "we can do better" standpoint than, "let's go back to status-quo".
Yeah, that's the "Perfect Solution Fallacy"... it's pretty common in the far right. it's basically "this solution isn't perfect, so we might as well do nothing".
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will soon take on a new role as the sponsor of at least two nationwide health insurance plans to be operated under contract with the federal government and offered to consumers in every state.
Related
These multistate plans were included in President Obama’s health care law as a substitute for a pure government-run health insurance program — the public option sought by many liberal Democrats and reviled by Republicans. Supporters of the national plans say they will increase competition in state health insurance markets, many of which are dominated by a handful of companies.
The national plans will compete directly with other private insurers and may have some significant advantages, including a federal seal of approval. Premiums and benefits for the multistate insurance plans will be negotiated by the United States Office of Personnel Management, the agency that arranges health benefits for federal employees.
Walton J. Francis, the author of a consumer guide to health plans for federal employees, said the personnel agency had been “extraordinarily successful” in managing that program, which has more than 200 health plans, including about 20 offered nationwide. The personnel agency has earned high marks for its ability to secure good terms for federal workers through negotiation rather than heavy-handed regulation of insurers.
John J. O’Brien, the director of health care and insurance at the agency, said the new plans would be offered to individuals and small employers through the insurance exchanges being set up in every state under the 2010 health care law.
No one knows how many people will sign up for the government-sponsored plans. In preparing cost estimates, the Obama administration told insurers to assume that each national plan would have 750,000 people enrolled in the first year.
Under the Affordable Care Act, at least one of the nationwide plans must be offered by a nonprofit entity. Insurance experts see an obvious candidate for that role: the Government Employees Health Association, a nonprofit group that covers more than 900,000 federal employees, retirees and dependents, making it the second-largest plan for federal workers, after the Blue Cross and Blue Shield program.
The association, with headquarters near Kansas City, Mo., was founded in 1937 to help railway mail clerks with their medical expenses, and it generally receives high scores in surveys of consumer satisfaction.
Richard G. Miles, the association’s president, expressed interest in offering a multistate plan to the general public through insurance exchanges, but said no decision had been made.
“Our expertise in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program would be useful in the private marketplace,” Mr. Miles said in an interview. “But we are concerned about the underwriting risk in providing insurance to an unknown group of customers.”
To be eligible to participate in the multistate program, insurers must be licensed in every state. The Government Employees Health Association recently bought a company that has the licenses it would need.
The new health care law stipulates that at least one of the multistate plans must provide insurance without coverage of abortion services. If a plan does cover abortions, it must establish separate accounts, one with money for abortion and one for all other medical services.
National insurance plans will be subject to regulation by the federal government, state insurance commissioners and state insurance exchanges. That mix could cause confusion for some consumers who have questions or complaints about their coverage.
The federal standards will pre-empt state rules in at least one respect: the national health plans will automatically be eligible to compete against other private insurers in the new exchanges, regardless of whether they have been certified as meeting the standards of those exchanges.
The administration has promised to “work cooperatively with states.” But it is unclear whether the government-sponsored plans will have to comply with all state laws and consumer protection standards; whether they will have to comply with state benefit mandates; and whether they will have to pay state fees and taxes levied on other insurers to finance exchange operations.
The National Association of Insurance Commissioners, which represents state regulators, expressed alarm at the prospect of a double standard.
“It is absolutely essential that multistate plans compete on a level playing field with other qualified health plans, which are subject to state insurance law,” the association said in a letter to the Office of Personnel Management.
Consumer groups expressed similar concerns. The national insurance plans and other carriers must be subject to identical standards, they say, or consumers cannot make valid comparisons.
“Multistate plans have real potential benefits for consumers,” said Ronald F. Pollack, the executive director of Families USA, a liberal-leaning consumer group. “But there is also potential trouble if the multistate plans are exempted from some consumer protection standards.”
Robert E. Moffit, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said he worried that “the nationwide health plans, operating under terms and conditions set by the federal government, will become the robust public option that liberals always wanted.”
Insurers are pleading with the Office of Personnel Management to provide more detailed guidance.
“We are concerned that O.P.M. has not yet released rules specifying the requirements for the multistate plan,” said Jay A. Warmuth, a lawyer at UnitedHealth Group, one of the nation’s largest insurers.
Rules for the new program have been under review by the White House for three months, and officials said they would be issued soon.
Basically, a nonprofit group (most likely GEHA, which runs an [apparently excellent] existing program for federal employees) will be set up as a nationwide insurance program available to anyone.
whembly wrote: Businesses will adapt, like they always do...
QFT
I was watching this one guy talk about how he was strongly considering cutting back employees to part time to save money. This guy has at least 3200 employees based upon 40 stores with 80 to 300 employees per store.
Now if this guy decides to cut his employees back in hours, some of them will look for work elsewhere. This will either be part time or full time work -- resulting in the loss of a trained worker. To make matters worse, most servers are part time, so his full time staff will come from the kitchen or management staff, further hurting his business.
So does this guy decide to fork out the health care for the employees he is currently hiring, or does he risk their loss to his business? Does he risk the bad press of being labeled as someone who is willing to cut employees back to save a buck.
Its a hard choice that he needs to make.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/zane-tankel-applebees-obamacare_n_2094568.html
Plus, as a nation... we ain't getting any younger.
Well when the boomers start dropping in...oh yeah now. That'll change. The old end of the boomers are about to be in thier 70's the youngest are hitting 50. Life expectancy is 78. Seems to me we'll be getting younger soon...
In retrospect that seems a little cold.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
Plus, as a nation... we ain't getting any younger.
Well when the boomers start dropping in...oh yeah now. That'll change. The old end of the boomers are about to be in thier 70's the youngest are hitting 50. Life expectancy is 78. Seems to me we'll be getting younger soon...
In retrospect that seems a little cold.
Cold would be setting them out into the wild to fend for themselves when they can't work any more
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
Hedgehog wrote: There's a reason why the US spends more on healthcare per person than anyone else
Because we can...
, but also still has the worst levels of care in the developed world (overall).
By what measure?
It's simple once you think about - if you're paid for the amount of treatment you provide, then the main incentive is to provide more treatment to the best payers, regardless of whether or not that treatment is effective, needed, or could be better used elsewhere.
Uh... no... that's not how it works.
I'm still staggered by the idea that in a modern first-world democracy, you can die of an entirely curable disease simply because you can't pay for the treatment.
Er... what? That's just a loaded question as I ever see one.
If universal healthcare (even is using a flawed model) is Obama's only legacy for the US
News flash bucko... the ACA act (aka Obamacare) is NOT universal healthcare. The same system is in place, only that there's now a mandate that everyone must have insurance (private or state exchange).... and if you don't, you pay a fine to the IRS in which the money is funneled back into a combination of the state exchange and the private insurance (yeah, wrap your head around that one). it's the same system with some tweaks & regulatory overhaul
, then he's still got to go down as one of the greatest figures in American history - the number of lives that will be saved and the amount of suffering eased will be incredible.
LOLwut? Where are you getting this?
As for myself in the UK, I'm immensely grateful we have the NHS already!
Mannahnin wrote: For me, ACA is a compromise step forward. It's not as far as we need to go, but it was desperately difficult to get even that much passed.
It's a mess... it really is. It will not do what it "said" it will do.
If this thread is hopping tonight, I'll post some specifics.
Well... I guess there's some action on this thread.
Some weird stuff about the ACA bill(stolen from another site):
OBAMACARE FACT #1: BREASTFEEDING: All employers must now provide a “reasonable break time” and a “private place other than a bathroom” for employees to express breast milk for at least one year after childbirth. Employers with fewer than 50 employees “may” be exempt if they can demonstrate compliance would result in an “undue hardship.” [Section 4207, Affordable Care Act].
Other than a bathroom? So a special breast feeding lounge or something? I have absolutely nothing against breast feeding (quite the contrary), but this is a regulation that the federal government needed to impose on business owners in this economy? Really?
In addition,in defining the “essential health benefits package” that all health insurance policies must offer (under section 1302 of the Act), the Department of Health & Human Services has issued regulations requiring free coverage of breastfeeding supplies and counseling.
OBAMACARE .FACT #2: TRAINING HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS FOR “DIVERSITY”: There is BIG money in Obamacare for all things relating to “diversity,” which is crudely defined as “individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds.” For example, section 5402–titled “Health Care Professionals Training for Diversity”– appropriates hundreds of millions of dollars to provide and expand scholarships and pay back student loans. Specifically, 5402 provides:
(1) An additional $25 million for paying back the student loans of “disadvantaged background” students– up to $30,000 per year– if they become faculty at a health profession school (nursing; medical schools; PA schools, etc.). The Secretary of HHS may also make grants/enter into contracts with such health profession schools to help subsidize the salaries of hiring such “disadvantaged background” students as faculty.
(2) About $250 million for scholarships to “disadvantaged background” students attending health profession schools ($51 million for fiscal year 2010 and “such sums as may be necessary” for the next 4 years).
(3) About $300 million for scholarships to “disadvantaged background” students who attend health profession schools and then agree to provide service in an “unserved or underserved population” area after graduation ($60 million for fiscal year 2010 and “such sums as may be necessary” for the next 4 years).
The grand total for these 3 items alone = $ 575 million over a 5 year period. Breathtaking boondoggle.
OBAMACARE FACT #3: Under section 4203 of the Affordable Care Act, all medical diagnostic equipment used by physicians, hospitals and other health care providers–e.g., ex-rays, exam tables, exam chairs, mammography equipment, MRIs, etc.– must be equipment that is “accessible to, and usable by, individuals with accessibility needs, and shall allow independent entry to, use of, and exit from the equipment by such individuals to the maximum extent possible.”
While I think we can all agree that this is a nice goal, is it really appropriate to mandate this, in this economy, regardless of its cost? Price tag: Unknown.
OBAMACARE FACT #4: $1.25 billion– yes, that’s “billion” with a “b”– for “centers of excellence for depression.“ [section 10410 of the Affordable Care Act] These centers will engage in research and treatment of depression.
Wow– really? $1.25 BILLION to universities and other entities to do something–treat and conduct research on depression–that they already have every incentive in the world to do? Indeed, there’s already a National Network of Depression Centers (NNDC)–consisting of 21 large institutions–that has functionally being doing this type of work since 2007.
What a boondoggle. Makes me depressed. Think I can get a grant?
Good to know my tax dollars aren’t being squandered in these tough economic times.
OBAMACARE FACT #5: SMOKE & MIRRORS: Section 8002 of Obamacare created the CLASS (Community Living Assistance Services & Supports) Program. CLASS was supposed to be a government-sponsored, voluntary long-term care insurance program funded via payroll deductions (with subsidies for low-income enrollees). Enrollees were required to pay into the CLASS insurance for 5 years– a “vesting” period– before they could draw any benefits.
Because of its long vesting period (during which time premiums were collected but benefits not paid out), CLASS was scored as “saving” taxpayers $80 billion– which was more than half of Obamacare’s supposed $143 billion in budgetary “savings.”
Guess what? In October 2011, the Obama Administration admitted what most smart folks had known all along: That the CLASS program was fiscally unsustainable and unworkable. Only sick people with expensive long-term care needs wanted to enroll and pay its hefty premiums. HHS Secretary Sebelius admitted, ““Despite our best analytical efforts, I do not see a viable path forward for CLASS implementation at this time.”
Epic fail.
The point is this... while those things that I just listed are admirable causes... is this something that needed to be in the ACA bill?
Congress could've just passed a law to create/manage the public exchange...
Passed another law to tweak the private insurance regulation...
Passed a separate law to address any shortcoming to Medicare...
Etc.
Instead, we got a massive whopper where lawmakers inserted their pet causes/lobby interest/shenanigans that had nothing to do with "fixing healthcare", which is making sure everyone has insurance and to drive down cost.
whembly wrote: Instead, we got a massive whopper where lawmakers inserted their pet causes/lobby interest/shenanigans that had nothing to do with "fixing healthcare", which is making sure everyone has insurance and to drive down cost.
You mean just like every single other law ever passed since the invention of democracy?
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
whembly wrote: Instead, we got a massive whopper where lawmakers inserted their pet causes/lobby interest/shenanigans that had nothing to do with "fixing healthcare", which is making sure everyone has insurance and to drive down cost.
You mean just like every single other law ever passed since the invention of democracy?
YEAH!
I would like to add (may have said this earlier) is that businesses and workers will adapt.
We'll be fine... might be painful for a few years, but we'll get through this.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/13 06:19:40
Well when the boomers start dropping in...oh yeah now. That'll change. The old end of the boomers are about to be in thier 70's the youngest are hitting 50. Life expectancy is 78. Seems to me we'll be getting younger soon....
That will also have a good benifit on the social security system. The SS is a little lopsided right now because of the disproportionate number of elderly to young. As such, the SS ponzi scheme is having to dip into its T-Bill investment until the baby boomers die out.
This is, of course, one of the many reasons the SS system needs to be revisited. Its the worst investment you can make with your dollar.
Well when the boomers start dropping in...oh yeah now. That'll change. The old end of the boomers are about to be in thier 70's the youngest are hitting 50. Life expectancy is 78. Seems to me we'll be getting younger soon....
That will also have a good benifit on the social security system. The SS is a little lopsided right now because of the disproportionate number of elderly to young. As such, the SS ponzi scheme is having to dip into its T-Bill investment until the baby boomers die out.
This is, of course, one of the many reasons the SS system needs to be revisited. Its the worst investment you can make with your dollar.
Until they die out? SS will be technically bankrupty in just a few years. Suck it young people hahahahah!!!!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote: Until they die out? SS will be technically bankrupty in just a few years. Suck it young people hahahahah!!!!
That is an inaccurate term poorly used.
Historically, Social Security has collected more than it paid out. The extra money built up in a trust fund that collects interest. But due to demographic and economic changes, it's expected that insurance payments will begin to exceed income in 2021. Around 2033, the fund will run out.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/10/15/5-huge-myths-about-social-security/
SS needs an overhaul, but it's not because the program is going 'bankrupt'. It's because the model SS uses is not a financially responsible one. SS takes money from all the people paying into the system, then hands benifits to the elderly. Any leftovers are put into US T-Bills.
Instead we should be investing our SS money. You should be able to invest it just like a 401k.
Well when the boomers start dropping in...oh yeah now. That'll change. The old end of the boomers are about to be in thier 70's the youngest are hitting 50. Life expectancy is 78. Seems to me we'll be getting younger soon....
That will also have a good benifit on the social security system. The SS is a little lopsided right now because of the disproportionate number of elderly to young. As such, the SS ponzi scheme is having to dip into its T-Bill investment until the baby boomers die out.
This is, of course, one of the many reasons the SS system needs to be revisited. Its the worst investment you can make with your dollar.
By T bills I assume you mean the Trust Fund, which is why it exists in the first place. The defenders of Social Security say that it's independently funded through at least 2036 but remember back in July 2011 when Obama couldn't guarantee that Social Security recipients would get thier checks? It's one or the other, it can't be both. SS doesn't need to be revisited as much as the truth about it needs to be told. So that we all know what's going on and if it's sustainable in the long term. We already now Medicare isn't.
Historically, Social Security has collected more than it paid out. The extra money built up in a trust fund that collects interest. But due to demographic and economic changes, it's expected that insurance payments will begin to exceed income in 2021.
Of course you meant 2010. Which is when SS started taking in less in taxes then it pays out.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/13 14:38:34
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
There are many arguments against creating exchanges.
First, states are under no obligation to create one.
Second, operating an Obamacare exchange would be illegal in 14 states. Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia have enacted either statutes or constitutional amendments (or both) forbidding state employees to participate in an essential exchange function: implementing Obamacare's individual and employer mandates.
Third, each exchange would cost its state an estimated $10 million to $100 million per year, necessitating tax increases.
Fourth, the November 16 deadline is no more real than the "deadlines" for implementing REAL ID, which have been pushed back repeatedly since 2008.
Fifth, states can always create an exchange later if they choose.
Sixth, a state-created exchange is not a state-controlled exchange. All exchanges will be controlled by Washington.
Seventh, Congress authorized no funds for federal "fallback" exchanges. So Washington may not be able to impose Exchanges on states at all.
Eighth, the Obama administration has yet to provide crucial information that states need before they can make an informed decision.
Ninth, creating an exchange sets state officials up to take the blame when Obamacare increases insurance premiums and denies care to the sick. State officials won't want their names on this disastrous mess.
Tenth, creating an exchange would be assisting in the creation of a "public option" that would drive domestic health-insurance carriers out of business through unfair competition. [edit: eh... viva la Canada! ]
Eleventh, Obamacare remains unpopular. The latest Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that only 38 percent of the public supports it.
Twelfth, defaulting to a federal exchange exempts a state's employers from the employer mandate — a tax of $2,000 per worker per year (the tax applies to companies with more than 59 employees, but for such companies that tax applies after the 30th employee, not the 59th). If all states did so, that would exempt 18 million Americans from the individual mandate's tax of $2,085 per family of four. Avoiding those taxes improves a state's prospects for job creation, and protects the conscience rights of employers and individuals whom the Obama administration is forcing to purchase contraceptives coverage.
Finally, rejecting an exchange reduces the federal deficit. Obamacare offers its deficit-financed subsidies to private health insurers only through state-created exchanges. If all states declined, federal deficits would fall by roughly $700 billion over ten years.
Oh look, Koch sponsored ultra conservative arguments against something Obama did were copy & pasted here, what a surprising thing to happen, I almost passed out in shock...
I think it is time for me to get the hell out of the OT before I get banned...
d-usa wrote: Oh look, Koch sponsored ultra conservative arguments against something Obama did were copy & pasted here, what a surprising thing to happen, I almost passed out in shock...
I think it is time for me to get the hell out of the OT before I get banned...
So you consider this particular response null and void?
Frazzled wrote: Until they die out? SS will be technically bankrupty in just a few years. Suck it young people hahahahah!!!!
That is an inaccurate term poorly used.
Historically, Social Security has collected more than it paid out. The extra money built up in a trust fund that collects interest. But due to demographic and economic changes, it's expected that insurance payments will begin to exceed income in 2021. Around 2033, the fund will run out.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/10/15/5-huge-myths-about-social-security/
SS needs an overhaul, but it's not because the program is going 'bankrupt'. It's because the model SS uses is not a financially responsible one. SS takes money from all the people paying into the system, then hands benifits to the elderly. Any leftovers are put into US T-Bills.
Instead we should be investing our SS money. You should be able to invest it just like a 401k.
Isn't the idea to exchange efficiency (401K) for stability (T-bills)?
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Frazzled wrote: Until they die out? SS will be technically bankrupty in just a few years. Suck it young people hahahahah!!!!
That is an inaccurate term poorly used.
Historically, Social Security has collected more than it paid out. The extra money built up in a trust fund that collects interest. But due to demographic and economic changes, it's expected that insurance payments will begin to exceed income in 2021. Around 2033, the fund will run out.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/10/15/5-huge-myths-about-social-security/
SS needs an overhaul, but it's not because the program is going 'bankrupt'. It's because the model SS uses is not a financially responsible one. SS takes money from all the people paying into the system, then hands benifits to the elderly. Any leftovers are put into US T-Bills.
Instead we should be investing our SS money. You should be able to invest it just like a 401k.
Isn't the idea to exchange efficiency (401K) for stability (T-bills)?
No... not with the current interest rates. Not enough growth to even cover cost of living.
That's why the older generates in less risky investments (which is the safetest way) aren't making the returns they've expected 10-20 yrs ago.
There's really no great answer.
Pick your poison.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/13 19:00:18
Ninth, creating an exchange sets state officials up to take the blame when Obamacare increases insurance premiums and denies care to the sick. State officials won't want their names on this disastrous mess.
Tenth, creating an exchange would be assisting in the creation of a "public option" that would drive domestic health-insurance carriers out of business through unfair competition. [edit: eh... viva la Canada! ]
Eleventh, Obamacare remains unpopular. The latest Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that only 38 percent of the public supports it.
IMO, these three are the most egregious of the BS listed. Here's why:
Ninth, denying care to the sick is exactly what the ACA is designed to prevent.
Tenth, not likely, but in any case, boo-freakin'-hoo. There is already "unfair competition"; the insurance companies are just angry they might not be the big fish anymore.
Eleventh, this is an outright lie, and also irrelevant. This speaks to the mindless herd mentality that the authors feel drives their readers.
whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote: Oh look, Koch sponsored ultra conservative arguments against something Obama did were copy & pasted here, what a surprising thing to happen, I almost passed out in shock...
I think it is time for me to get the hell out of the OT before I get banned...
So you consider this particular response null and void?
Uh, yeah, that's generally how it works. When the works of lying propaganda artists who are known for their propaganda and outright lies are posted, it's generally a good idea to consider the entire post null & void. It also severely damages the credibility of the person who regurgitated that propaganda.
whembly wrote:
TheHammer wrote: Anything Cato says is likely stupid and intentionally designed to be a lie.
Just like Fox News... amirite?
You can read something and have an opinion irregardless who's the source.
Just like 90% of Fox News. "Fair and balanced" only means 'we give equal credibility to opinions and outright BS as we do to facts'. That's why real news programming doesn't call themselves fair and balanced with regard to opinions; they report facts.
And "irregardless" is not a word. You mean irrespective or regardless.
Cato is Cato. They believe the free market is perfect and unassailable so everything they produce comes from the perspective that the free market is the solution to everything, and they are shameless about cherry picking data to back up that claim, even if the data they use are parts of studies that prove the opposite of what they assert.
There is ideology, which we all have and you're lying if you say otherwise, and then there's a willful ignorance to the world around you so your ideology can remain. Cato is bad and you should feel bad for citing them.
Ninth, creating an exchange sets state officials up to take the blame when Obamacare increases insurance premiums and denies care to the sick. State officials won't want their names on this disastrous mess.
Tenth, creating an exchange would be assisting in the creation of a "public option" that would drive domestic health-insurance carriers out of business through unfair competition. [edit: eh... viva la Canada! ]
Eleventh, Obamacare remains unpopular. The latest Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that only 38 percent of the public supports it.
IMO, these three are the most egregious of the BS listed. Here's why:
Ninth, denying care to the sick is exactly what the ACA is designed to prevent.
Tenth, not likely, but in any case, boo-freakin'-hoo. There is already "unfair competition"; the insurance companies are just angry they might not be the big fish anymore.
Eleventh, this is an outright lie, and also irrelevant. This speaks to the mindless herd mentality that the authors feel drives their readers.
whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote: Oh look, Koch sponsored ultra conservative arguments against something Obama did were copy & pasted here, what a surprising thing to happen, I almost passed out in shock...
I think it is time for me to get the hell out of the OT before I get banned...
So you consider this particular response null and void?
Uh, yeah, that's generally how it works. When the works of lying propaganda artists who are known for their propaganda and outright lies are posted, it's generally a good idea to consider the entire post null & void. It also severely damages the credibility of the person who regurgitated that propaganda.
whembly wrote:
TheHammer wrote: Anything Cato says is likely stupid and intentionally designed to be a lie.
Just like Fox News... amirite?
You can read something and have an opinion irregardless who's the source.
Just like 90% of Fox News. "Fair and balanced" only means 'we give equal credibility to opinions and outright BS as we do to facts'. That's why real news programming doesn't call themselves fair and balanced with regard to opinions; they report facts.
And "irregardless" is not a word. You mean irrespective or regardless
.
First of all you grammar nazi... you're right... my bad (regardless).
Second of all... this doesn't help the poor as much as everyone thinks it will... they would still have some out of pocket expenses if they participate in the exchange. Right now, most of them dont pay anything as they'll show up in the ED. *shrugs*
Thirdly, the "unfair competition" statement of yours means you have no idea how the insurance companies work today.
Fourthly, I just wish someone with the Cojones to ask the american people... do we want the Private insurance model? Or, do we want single-payer? Without demagoging/advocating either system... both have good and bad things.
Also, Obamacare is STILL very unpopular. So, you're just ignoring that fact.
My piece? Just go single payer already. Sheesh... it ain't that hard.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/11/13 21:19:54
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
Some Americans do not qualify for government-provided health insurance, are not provided health insurance by an employer, and are unable to afford, cannot qualify for, or choose not to purchase, private health insurance. When charity or "uncompensated" care is not available, they sometimes simply go without needed medical treatment.
17% of GDP spent by the U.S. on health care with ... 9% of GDP spent by much of the rest of the world
20% to 30% of health care spending is waste... five causes for the waste: (1) overtreatment of patients, (2) the failure to coordinate care, (3) the administrative complexity of the health care system, (4) burdensome rules and (5) fraud.
Some observers note that there is a solid body of evidence showing that a substantial proportion of U.S. health care expenditures is directed toward care that is not effective and may sometimes even be harmful.
Without health insurance, adults are more likely to be diagnosed with certain cancers that would have been detectable earlier by screening by a clinician if they had regularly visited a doctor. As a consequence, these adults are more likely to die from their diagnosed cancer or suffer poorer health outcomes
A 2008 study found that 101,000 people a year die in the U.S. that would not if the health care system were as effective as that of France, Japan, or Australia.
Among OECD nations for which data are available, the United States ranked third last for the health care of women (after Mexico and Hungary) and fifth last for men (Slovakia and Poland were also worse). See the table and source at YPLL for details.
In 2009, lack of health insurance was responsible for about 45,000 excess preventable deaths in the U.S.[137] Since then, as the number of uninsured has risen from about 46 million in 2009 to 48.6 million in 2012, the number of preventable deaths due to lack of insurance has grown to about 48,000 per year.
A study of international health care spending levels published in the health policy journal Health Affairs in the year 2000 found that the U.S. spends substantially more on health care than any other country in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and that the use of health care services in the U.S. is below the OECD median by most measures. The authors of the study conclude that the prices paid for health care services are much higher in the U.S. than elsewhere. While the 19 next most wealthy countries by GDP all pay less than half what the US does for health care, they have all gained about six years of life expectancy more than the U.S. since 1970.
Among adults surveyed in the U.S., 37% reported that they had foregone needed medical care in the previous year because of cost; either skipping medications, avoiding seeing a doctor when sick, or avoiding other recommended care. The rate was even higher— 42%—among those with chronic conditions. The study reported that these rates were well above those found in the other six countries surveyed: Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the UK.
And one very basic set of figures: world life expectancy rates. Noticeably the Us is below every first world country except some of the former Soviet-bloc nations in eastern Europe, who did not have access to morern medical care until 20 years ago, and are still catching up.
While Wikipedia is only one source of information, the number and nature of the quotes I've posted seem to at least partially bear out my comments... read the whole thing, and take a look at some of the citations.
Follow the White Scars Fifth Brotherhood as they fight in the Yarov sector - battle report #7 against Eldar here!
Some Americans do not qualify for government-provided health insurance, are not provided health insurance by an employer, and are unable to afford, cannot qualify for, or choose not to purchase, private health insurance. When charity or "uncompensated" care is not available, they sometimes simply go without needed medical treatment.
17% of GDP spent by the U.S. on health care with ... 9% of GDP spent by much of the rest of the world
20% to 30% of health care spending is waste... five causes for the waste: (1) overtreatment of patients, (2) the failure to coordinate care, (3) the administrative complexity of the health care system, (4) burdensome rules and (5) fraud.
Some observers note that there is a solid body of evidence showing that a substantial proportion of U.S. health care expenditures is directed toward care that is not effective and may sometimes even be harmful.
Without health insurance, adults are more likely to be diagnosed with certain cancers that would have been detectable earlier by screening by a clinician if they had regularly visited a doctor. As a consequence, these adults are more likely to die from their diagnosed cancer or suffer poorer health outcomes
A 2008 study found that 101,000 people a year die in the U.S. that would not if the health care system were as effective as that of France, Japan, or Australia.
Among OECD nations for which data are available, the United States ranked third last for the health care of women (after Mexico and Hungary) and fifth last for men (Slovakia and Poland were also worse). See the table and source at YPLL for details.
In 2009, lack of health insurance was responsible for about 45,000 excess preventable deaths in the U.S.[137] Since then, as the number of uninsured has risen from about 46 million in 2009 to 48.6 million in 2012, the number of preventable deaths due to lack of insurance has grown to about 48,000 per year.
A study of international health care spending levels published in the health policy journal Health Affairs in the year 2000 found that the U.S. spends substantially more on health care than any other country in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and that the use of health care services in the U.S. is below the OECD median by most measures. The authors of the study conclude that the prices paid for health care services are much higher in the U.S. than elsewhere. While the 19 next most wealthy countries by GDP all pay less than half what the US does for health care, they have all gained about six years of life expectancy more than the U.S. since 1970.
Among adults surveyed in the U.S., 37% reported that they had foregone needed medical care in the previous year because of cost; either skipping medications, avoiding seeing a doctor when sick, or avoiding other recommended care. The rate was even higher— 42%—among those with chronic conditions. The study reported that these rates were well above those found in the other six countries surveyed: Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the UK.
And one very basic set of figures: world life expectancy rates. Noticeably the Us is below every first world country except some of the former Soviet-bloc nations in eastern Europe, who did not have access to morern medical care until 20 years ago, and are still catching up.
While Wikipedia is only one source of information, the number and nature of the quotes I've posted seem to at least partially bear out my comments... read the whole thing, and take a look at some of the citations.
No problem brother
We ain't perfect...
And yes, we spend a gak-ton on Healthcare comparibly to the rest of the western world... 'tis why I'm alright with single payer ala Canada or NHS.
I just take umbrage over the perception that our Healthcare is in the stone age. Frankly... the differences between the top nations (and I include USA) is negliable. They're ALL good.
The issue is access/cost... that's what's facing us here today.
And please wiki isn't the end-all-be-all...
That's like me "wiki-ing" stuff about the UK and me saying... "hey I readz some schnitz about the UK... so, I'm boss!".
