Let's Reform The Individual Mandate In ACA

[Ame®icano]

I just said the pubic educational system in a broad sense....We should reform that and replace it with the South Korean or Norway version.

In South Korea every citizen pays in. Based on our progressive taxation, South Korean system cant work in USA.

 

[Bombur]

I just said the pubic educational system in a broad sense....We should reform that and replace it with the South Korean or Norway version.

In South Korea every citizen pays in. Based on our progressive taxation, South Korean system cant work in USA.

Education is funded relatively regressively.

 

[The Rabbi]

You used other nations "soaring costs" as a negative, where as our country has even greater soaring costs before Obamacare. Thus, like I said, your point is moot. Back to the drawing board for you!

It is hardly moot. Those systems of other nations produced soaring health care costs that have necessitated painful reform. Thus emulating them will guarantee we will get the same result.
Whether our country has experienced soaring costs or not is irrelevant to the fact that those other countries with their systems did. Thus the non sequitur.
You flunked logic, right?

Their soaring costs are less than ours and their overall ratings are higher in any study you look at yet you somehow think switching to their system will increase the cost of our already most expensive system in the world.

Solid logic, really.

It is irrelevant whether their soaring costs are less or more than ours. They are what they are. Their systems cannot deal with them and are falling apart as a result of increased costs.
I know logic is not your strong point. I am trying to figure what is your strong point, other than stalking.

 

[Rozman]

Would have been nice if the people that had insurance were able to keep their plans... as in...

Obama... "If you like your plan you can keep your plan"...

But as we have learned...
Obama is a liar!

 

[The Rabbi]

Link?

https://www.google.com/

So, that's a no. You don't have a link.

Yet, I had no problem providing you with proof for what I said. yet you can't do the same. So are you lying or lazy? You pick.

You have never provided proof to anything you write. You lie constantly. And as demonstrated here you are not terribly bright.
I read a lot and have seen the evidence: when people actually get sick, which is a true measure of health care quality, they are better off getting sick here. They receive prompter treatment that is more effective than in any other country. If you tried reading more you might have discovered the same. Of course you wouldn't because your low intelligence means you cannot read something and draw valid conclusions from it.

 

[kiwiman127]

How about single payer modeled after our public educational system.

Great idea.

Obamacare doesn't suck nearly bad enough.

Let's bring in Single Payer (i.e. 100% govt-provided health insurance), and we'll soon wish we had Obamacare back!

Sounds like a plan!

And the status quo healthcare system America has been stuck with is great? As long as Americans keep on getting stuck with the most expensive healthcare in the world by far, the US's healthcare system will continue to be an albatross hanging around the neck of any economic growth in this country. (Find me an economist who doesn't agree.) We don't have the best healthcare system in the world, those who benefit aren't working families/working individuals. The healthcare industry is the only ones benefiting. Pay attention to how much healthcare is eating up our GDP. Pay attention what Americans pay for healthcare versus what the rest of the world pays. Pay attention to why this so called recovery is so slow. We're getting screwed by the status quo, you love so much because your masters tell you to love it.
I do however think Public Option is workable and would hold costs down.

 

[Bombur]

It is hardly moot. Those systems of other nations produced soaring health care costs that have necessitated painful reform. Thus emulating them will guarantee we will get the same result.
Whether our country has experienced soaring costs or not is irrelevant to the fact that those other countries with their systems did. Thus the non sequitur.
You flunked logic, right?

Their soaring costs are less than ours and their overall ratings are higher in any study you look at yet you somehow think switching to their system will increase the cost of our already most expensive system in the world.

Solid logic, really.

It is irrelevant whether their soaring costs are less or more than ours. They are what they are. Their systems cannot deal with them and are falling apart as a result of increased costs.
I know logic is not your strong point. I am trying to figure what is your strong point, other than stalking.

The costs are most certainly relevant and you are the one that brought up cost. The major problems of the US system relate directly to cost.

In another post you reference the quality of care. I agree that if you are sick (and had insurance) you would rather be in the US than any other country. Once again the only problem with getting sick in the US is cost.

The other major countries have way more doctors than the US per person. The idea that there is some great shortage in most other countries is the exact opposite of the truth.

The US system is inefficient. It still produces some great results but it can be way more efficient.

 

[The Rabbi]

Their soaring costs are less than ours and their overall ratings are higher in any study you look at yet you somehow think switching to their system will increase the cost of our already most expensive system in the world.

Solid logic, really.

It is irrelevant whether their soaring costs are less or more than ours. They are what they are. Their systems cannot deal with them and are falling apart as a result of increased costs.
I know logic is not your strong point. I am trying to figure what is your strong point, other than stalking.

The costs are most certainly relevant and you are the one that brought up cost. The major problems of the US system relate directly to cost.

In another post you reference the quality of care. I agree that if you are sick (and had insurance) you would rather be in the US than any other country. Once again the only problem with getting sick in the US is cost.

The other major countries have way more doctors than the US per person. The idea that there is some great shortage in most other countries is the exact opposite of the truth.

The US system is inefficient. It still produces some great results but it can be way more efficient.

The costs are not comparable for a variety of reasons. High malpractice insurance premiums in the U.S is one of many.
But looking at the dynamic, the European systems have experienced enormous cost explosions, which has led to them trying to reform their own systems. So why do we want to emulate a system that has failed already once?
There is a great shortage of health care in all the countries with socialized type medicine. That is what socialism brings: rationing. Whether they have more or fewer doctors is irrelevant. In Canada doctors get paid only so much per year. Once they have made that, they go on vacation the rest of the year. In Iceland doctors were striking for better hours and higher wages. Why don't we see strikes like that among doctors here?

 

[Bombur]

It is irrelevant whether their soaring costs are less or more than ours. They are what they are. Their systems cannot deal with them and are falling apart as a result of increased costs.
I know logic is not your strong point. I am trying to figure what is your strong point, other than stalking.

The costs are most certainly relevant and you are the one that brought up cost. The major problems of the US system relate directly to cost.

In another post you reference the quality of care. I agree that if you are sick (and had insurance) you would rather be in the US than any other country. Once again the only problem with getting sick in the US is cost.

The other major countries have way more doctors than the US per person. The idea that there is some great shortage in most other countries is the exact opposite of the truth.

The US system is inefficient. It still produces some great results but it can be way more efficient.

The costs are not comparable for a variety of reasons. High malpractice insurance premiums in the U.S is one of many.
But looking at the dynamic, the European systems have experienced enormous cost explosions, which has led to them trying to reform their own systems. So why do we want to emulate a system that has failed already once?
There is a great shortage of health care in all the countries with socialized type medicine. That is what socialism brings: rationing. Whether they have more or fewer doctors is irrelevant. In Canada doctors get paid only so much per year. Once they have made that, they go on vacation the rest of the year. In Iceland doctors were striking for better hours and higher wages. Why don't we see strikes like that among doctors here?

Their systems didn't fail.

Malpractice happens everywhere. How we deal with it is part of our system and worth considering reform.

There is not some great shortage of health care across socialized nations. Yes the number of doctors matter as it has a big impact on accessibility, cost, and their ability to provide health care to everyone. There are far bigger problems within the US with regards to access to care than places like Germany or France or Japan.

I do not suggest we copy the UK or Canadian models.

 

[The Rabbi]

The costs are most certainly relevant and you are the one that brought up cost. The major problems of the US system relate directly to cost.

In another post you reference the quality of care. I agree that if you are sick (and had insurance) you would rather be in the US than any other country. Once again the only problem with getting sick in the US is cost.

The other major countries have way more doctors than the US per person. The idea that there is some great shortage in most other countries is the exact opposite of the truth.

The US system is inefficient. It still produces some great results but it can be way more efficient.

The costs are not comparable for a variety of reasons. High malpractice insurance premiums in the U.S is one of many.
But looking at the dynamic, the European systems have experienced enormous cost explosions, which has led to them trying to reform their own systems. So why do we want to emulate a system that has failed already once?
There is a great shortage of health care in all the countries with socialized type medicine. That is what socialism brings: rationing. Whether they have more or fewer doctors is irrelevant. In Canada doctors get paid only so much per year. Once they have made that, they go on vacation the rest of the year. In Iceland doctors were striking for better hours and higher wages. Why don't we see strikes like that among doctors here?

Their systems didn't fail.

Malpractice happens everywhere. How we deal with it is part of our system and worth considering reform.

There is not some great shortage of health care across socialized nations. Yes the number of doctors matter as it has a big impact on accessibility, cost, and their ability to provide health care to everyone. There are far bigger problems within the US with regards to access to care than places like Germany or France or Japan.

I do not suggest we copy the UK or Canadian models.

Your generalizations do not constitute argument.
/fail.

 

[kiwiman127]

It is irrelevant whether their soaring costs are less or more than ours. They are what they are. Their systems cannot deal with them and are falling apart as a result of increased costs.
I know logic is not your strong point. I am trying to figure what is your strong point, other than stalking.

The costs are most certainly relevant and you are the one that brought up cost. The major problems of the US system relate directly to cost.

In another post you reference the quality of care. I agree that if you are sick (and had insurance) you would rather be in the US than any other country. Once again the only problem with getting sick in the US is cost.

The other major countries have way more doctors than the US per person. The idea that there is some great shortage in most other countries is the exact opposite of the truth.

The US system is inefficient. It still produces some great results but it can be way more efficient.

The costs are not comparable for a variety of reasons. High malpractice insurance premiums in the U.S is one of many.
But looking at the dynamic, the European systems have experienced enormous cost explosions, which has led to them trying to reform their own systems. So why do we want to emulate a system that has failed already once?
There is a great shortage of health care in all the countries with socialized type medicine. That is what socialism brings: rationing. Whether they have more or fewer doctors is irrelevant. In Canada doctors get paid only so much per year. Once they have made that, they go on vacation the rest of the year. In Iceland doctors were striking for better hours and higher wages. Why don't we see strikes like that among doctors here?

"High malpractice insurance premiums in the U.S is one of many."
Really?
"Limiting malpractice torts nationwide would reduce total health care spending in two ways. First, tort limits would lower premiums for malpractice insurance by decreasing the average size of malpractice awards (which would also have the effect of decreasing the number of tort claims filed). That reduction in the cost of malpractice insurance paid by providers would flow to health plans and patients in the form of lower prices for health care services. Second, research suggests that placing limits on malpractice torts would decrease the use of health care services to a small extent because providers would prescribe slightly fewer services if they faced less pressure from potential malpractice claims. Together, those two factors would cause this option to reduce total health care spending by about 0.5 percent, the Congressional Budget Office estimates."
Maybe you should check this link out.
Limit Medical Malpractice Torts - CBO

And the rest of your rant can be covered with the chart below.
Per capita healthcare costs ? international comparison | pgpf.org

 

[The Rabbi]

The costs are most certainly relevant and you are the one that brought up cost. The major problems of the US system relate directly to cost.

In another post you reference the quality of care. I agree that if you are sick (and had insurance) you would rather be in the US than any other country. Once again the only problem with getting sick in the US is cost.

The other major countries have way more doctors than the US per person. The idea that there is some great shortage in most other countries is the exact opposite of the truth.

The US system is inefficient. It still produces some great results but it can be way more efficient.

The costs are not comparable for a variety of reasons. High malpractice insurance premiums in the U.S is one of many.
But looking at the dynamic, the European systems have experienced enormous cost explosions, which has led to them trying to reform their own systems. So why do we want to emulate a system that has failed already once?
There is a great shortage of health care in all the countries with socialized type medicine. That is what socialism brings: rationing. Whether they have more or fewer doctors is irrelevant. In Canada doctors get paid only so much per year. Once they have made that, they go on vacation the rest of the year. In Iceland doctors were striking for better hours and higher wages. Why don't we see strikes like that among doctors here?

"High malpractice insurance premiums in the U.S is one of many."
Really?
"Limiting malpractice torts nationwide would reduce total health care spending in two ways. First, tort limits would lower premiums for malpractice insurance by decreasing the average size of malpractice awards (which would also have the effect of decreasing the number of tort claims filed). That reduction in the cost of malpractice insurance paid by providers would flow to health plans and patients in the form of lower prices for health care services. Second, research suggests that placing limits on malpractice torts would decrease the use of health care services to a small extent because providers would prescribe slightly fewer services if they faced less pressure from potential malpractice claims. Together, those two factors would cause this option to reduce total health care spending by about 0.5 percent, the Congressional Budget Office estimates."
Maybe you should check this link out.
Limit Medical Malpractice Torts - CBO

And the rest of your rant can be covered with the chart below.
Per capita healthcare costs ? international comparison | pgpf.org

Your links do nothing to disprove my statement that high malpractice insurance premiums contribute to high medical costs in the country.
And if you are suggesting tort reform, well, shut the fuck up!
Rahm to Brother: 'Shut the F--- up!' on Tort Reform

 

[kiwiman127]

The costs are not comparable for a variety of reasons. High malpractice insurance premiums in the U.S is one of many.
But looking at the dynamic, the European systems have experienced enormous cost explosions, which has led to them trying to reform their own systems. So why do we want to emulate a system that has failed already once?
There is a great shortage of health care in all the countries with socialized type medicine. That is what socialism brings: rationing. Whether they have more or fewer doctors is irrelevant. In Canada doctors get paid only so much per year. Once they have made that, they go on vacation the rest of the year. In Iceland doctors were striking for better hours and higher wages. Why don't we see strikes like that among doctors here?

"High malpractice insurance premiums in the U.S is one of many."
Really?
"Limiting malpractice torts nationwide would reduce total health care spending in two ways. First, tort limits would lower premiums for malpractice insurance by decreasing the average size of malpractice awards (which would also have the effect of decreasing the number of tort claims filed). That reduction in the cost of malpractice insurance paid by providers would flow to health plans and patients in the form of lower prices for health care services. Second, research suggests that placing limits on malpractice torts would decrease the use of health care services to a small extent because providers would prescribe slightly fewer services if they faced less pressure from potential malpractice claims. Together, those two factors would cause this option to reduce total health care spending by about 0.5 percent, the Congressional Budget Office estimates."
Maybe you should check this link out.
Limit Medical Malpractice Torts - CBO

And the rest of your rant can be covered with the chart below.
Per capita healthcare costs ? international comparison | pgpf.org

Your links do nothing to disprove my statement that high malpractice insurance premiums contribute to high medical costs in the country.
And if you are suggesting tort reform, well, shut the fuck up!
Rahm to Brother: 'Shut the F--- up!' on Tort Reform

0.5% reduction with Malpractice reform represents a tiny, tiny portion of the cost of healthcare. I think you didn't understand the simple statement by the CBO or you chose to ignore it. This clearly demonstrates your overused talking point is just that, a weak talking point with zilch to back it up.

 

[The Rabbi]

"High malpractice insurance premiums in the U.S is one of many."
Really?
"Limiting malpractice torts nationwide would reduce total health care spending in two ways. First, tort limits would lower premiums for malpractice insurance by decreasing the average size of malpractice awards (which would also have the effect of decreasing the number of tort claims filed). That reduction in the cost of malpractice insurance paid by providers would flow to health plans and patients in the form of lower prices for health care services. Second, research suggests that placing limits on malpractice torts would decrease the use of health care services to a small extent because providers would prescribe slightly fewer services if they faced less pressure from potential malpractice claims. Together, those two factors would cause this option to reduce total health care spending by about 0.5 percent, the Congressional Budget Office estimates."
Maybe you should check this link out.
Limit Medical Malpractice Torts - CBO

And the rest of your rant can be covered with the chart below.
Per capita healthcare costs ? international comparison | pgpf.org

Your links do nothing to disprove my statement that high malpractice insurance premiums contribute to high medical costs in the country.
And if you are suggesting tort reform, well, shut the fuck up!
Rahm to Brother: 'Shut the F--- up!' on Tort Reform

0.5% reduction with Malpractice reform represents a tiny, tiny portion of the cost of healthcare. I think you didn't understand the simple statement by the CBO or you chose to ignore it. This clearly demonstrates your overused talking point is just that, a weak talking point with zilch to back it up.

As I wrote, high malpractice insurnce premiums are one factor. That means there are many others. The CBO's predictions have never been correct. NEver.
I understand you have to challenge things that contradict your world view. But pick on a less informed, less skillful poster than me. Save everyone a lot of time.

 

[dblack]

Your links do nothing to disprove my statement that high malpractice insurance premiums contribute to high medical costs in the country.
And if you are suggesting tort reform, well, shut the fuck up!
Rahm to Brother: 'Shut the F--- up!' on Tort Reform

0.5% reduction with Malpractice reform represents a tiny, tiny portion of the cost of healthcare. I think you didn't understand the simple statement by the CBO or you chose to ignore it. This clearly demonstrates your overused talking point is just that, a weak talking point with zilch to back it up.

As I wrote, high malpractice insurnce premiums are one factor. That means there are many others. The CBO's predictions have never been correct. NEver.
I understand you have to challenge things that contradict your world view. But pick on a less informed, less skillful poster than me. Save everyone a lot of time.

Now that's throwing down the gauntlet!

 

[Bombur]

The costs are not comparable for a variety of reasons. High malpractice insurance premiums in the U.S is one of many.
But looking at the dynamic, the European systems have experienced enormous cost explosions, which has led to them trying to reform their own systems. So why do we want to emulate a system that has failed already once?
There is a great shortage of health care in all the countries with socialized type medicine. That is what socialism brings: rationing. Whether they have more or fewer doctors is irrelevant. In Canada doctors get paid only so much per year. Once they have made that, they go on vacation the rest of the year. In Iceland doctors were striking for better hours and higher wages. Why don't we see strikes like that among doctors here?

Their systems didn't fail.

Malpractice happens everywhere. How we deal with it is part of our system and worth considering reform.

There is not some great shortage of health care across socialized nations. Yes the number of doctors matter as it has a big impact on accessibility, cost, and their ability to provide health care to everyone. There are far bigger problems within the US with regards to access to care than places like Germany or France or Japan.

I do not suggest we copy the UK or Canadian models.

Your generalizations do not constitute argument.
/fail.

You made general claims that are blatantly false and then run away when called on it?

It takes a special kind of someone to bring up costs as a reason why the German system is in worse shape than the US. I guess I should have seen this coming.

 

[The Rabbi]

Their systems didn't fail.

Malpractice happens everywhere. How we deal with it is part of our system and worth considering reform.

There is not some great shortage of health care across socialized nations. Yes the number of doctors matter as it has a big impact on accessibility, cost, and their ability to provide health care to everyone. There are far bigger problems within the US with regards to access to care than places like Germany or France or Japan.

I do not suggest we copy the UK or Canadian models.

Your generalizations do not constitute argument.
/fail.

You made general claims that are blatantly false and then run away when called on it?

It takes a special kind of someone to bring up costs as a reason why the German system is in worse shape than the US. I guess I should have seen this coming.

Every claim I made is not only true but verified. That you cannot follow an argument is not my fault.

 

[RDD_1210]

"High malpractice insurance premiums in the U.S is one of many."
Really?
"Limiting malpractice torts nationwide would reduce total health care spending in two ways. First, tort limits would lower premiums for malpractice insurance by decreasing the average size of malpractice awards (which would also have the effect of decreasing the number of tort claims filed). That reduction in the cost of malpractice insurance paid by providers would flow to health plans and patients in the form of lower prices for health care services. Second, research suggests that placing limits on malpractice torts would decrease the use of health care services to a small extent because providers would prescribe slightly fewer services if they faced less pressure from potential malpractice claims. Together, those two factors would cause this option to reduce total health care spending by about 0.5 percent, the Congressional Budget Office estimates."
Maybe you should check this link out.
Limit Medical Malpractice Torts - CBO

And the rest of your rant can be covered with the chart below.
Per capita healthcare costs ? international comparison | pgpf.org

Your links do nothing to disprove my statement that high malpractice insurance premiums contribute to high medical costs in the country.
And if you are suggesting tort reform, well, shut the fuck up!
Rahm to Brother: 'Shut the F--- up!' on Tort Reform

0.5% reduction with Malpractice reform represents a tiny, tiny portion of the cost of healthcare. I think you didn't understand the simple statement by the CBO or you chose to ignore it. This clearly demonstrates your overused talking point is just that, a weak talking point with zilch to back it up.

All his ridiculous points are easily defeated. Every last one of them in this thread have been shred apart. He doesn't post evidence for his BS and ignores evidence that disproves his nonsense.

That is Rabbi in a nutshell.

Now he'll neg me and call me a dunce. He's beyond predictable.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your links do nothing to disprove my statement that high malpractice insurance premiums contribute to high medical costs in the country.
And if you are suggesting tort reform, well, shut the fuck up!
Rahm to Brother: 'Shut the F--- up!' on Tort Reform

0.5% reduction with Malpractice reform represents a tiny, tiny portion of the cost of healthcare. I think you didn't understand the simple statement by the CBO or you chose to ignore it. This clearly demonstrates your overused talking point is just that, a weak talking point with zilch to back it up.

All his ridiculous points are easily defeated. Every last one of them in this thread have been shred apart. He doesn't post evidence for his BS and ignores evidence that disproves his nonsense.

That is Rabbi in a nutshell.

Now he'll neg me and call me a dunce. He's beyond predictable.

You keep saying my points are easily defeated. And then fail to do so.
You are a dunce. There is no question.

 

[RDD_1210]

0.5% reduction with Malpractice reform represents a tiny, tiny portion of the cost of healthcare. I think you didn't understand the simple statement by the CBO or you chose to ignore it. This clearly demonstrates your overused talking point is just that, a weak talking point with zilch to back it up.

As I wrote, high malpractice insurnce premiums are one factor. That means there are many others. The CBO's predictions have never been correct. NEver.
I understand you have to challenge things that contradict your world view. But pick on a less informed, less skillful poster than me. Save everyone a lot of time.

Now that's throwing down the gauntlet!

You mean waving the white flag.