Who do you trust more on health care?

[blimpo]

Yes it does. The government under Obama will have a panel of "experts" who will decide that you've used up your QALYs and its time to die.
The Democrat war on citizens.

You're insane.

I'd trust anyone before I'd trust my FOR PROFIT health insurance company. That is now who decides like a dictator whether I will have treatment or not.

My medical treatment is the exact opposite of their bottom line.

My care hurts their profit and they'd kill to make a profit.

Really.. Give an example of how you were denied care....And don't make anything up because not only do I ask questions, I question answers.

I was told (after a recommendation from a doctor) a nuclear treadmill (which costs thousands) wouldn't be covered even though it was within network. Rather than fork over the dough I didn't have it done. Only time will tell if the gamble pays off.

Even if they turn 50% of my requests down, I can't go anywhere else do to pre-existing conditions (bypass surgery). I'm trapped.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, if you're like most Americans, the answer is Barack Obama.

Poll: Obama has double-digit advantage on health care, Medicare - POLITICO.com

More from the new CNN poll out this afternoon: President Obama has a double-digit lead over Mitt Romney on both the issues of health care and Medicare.

According to the poll, 54 percent of likely voters think Obama would better handle the issue of health care, compared with 45 percent for Romney. Before the conventions, on Aug. 22-23, Obama led by only 1 point on the issue, 49 percent to 48 percent.

On Medicare, the disparity is even more pronounced: Obama leads Romney by 11 points, 54 percent to 43 percent, compared with a 1-point lead back in the pre-convention August poll.

Health care is an issue on which the public has been deeply divided, even in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling earlier this summer. And Medicare, though it's been a traditionally winning issue for Democrats, is something Republicans have sought to play offense on after Paul Ryan joined the GOP ticket. These numbers suggest that, at least in terms of messaging at the conventions, Democrats have the upper hand on both issues.

Perhaps that's why Mitt is starting to embrace Obamacare.

Personally, I would trust a doctor over a politician every day of the week. Then again, they never poll people like me, it gives them headaches.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You're insane.

I'd trust anyone before I'd trust my FOR PROFIT health insurance company. That is now who decides like a dictator whether I will have treatment or not.

My medical treatment is the exact opposite of their bottom line.

My care hurts their profit and they'd kill to make a profit.

Really.. Give an example of how you were denied care....And don't make anything up because not only do I ask questions, I question answers.

I was told (after a recommendation from a doctor) a nuclear treadmill (which costs thousands) wouldn't be covered even though it was within network. Rather than fork over the dough I didn't have it done. Only time will tell if the gamble pays off.

Even if they turn 50% of my requests down, I can't go anywhere else do to pre-existing conditions (bypass surgery). I'm trapped.

Nuclear treadmill?
Look, there is no way an insurance company OR government can insure patients with pre existing conditions. Insurance coverage is measured in risk. High risk people SHOULD pay higher premiums while healthy people should do the opposite. It has to be that way.
The amount of money available is finite. That bears out as fact based on the money pools in the form of premiums paid by the insureds.
The concept of insurance is quite simple. "To pool the money of the many, to care for the needs of the few".
For a politician to state they can reduce the "cost" of medical care is disingenuous.
They can reduce the "price" but not the cost. What Obama care proposes is to reduce price which requires government to subsidize the cost. The geniuses in Congress and the Executive Branch have lied to us by stating ACA will cost the $900 billion as stated in the bill.
The cost will be MUCH higher.

 

[Greenbeard]

For a politician to state they can reduce the "cost" of medical care is disingenuous.
They can reduce the "price" but not the cost. What Obama care proposes is to reduce price which requires government to subsidize the cost.

On the contrary, ObamaCare (like most policy proposals that are popular right now) focuses squarely on costs. Our system is bloated, inefficient, and underperforming, leading to hundreds of billions in wasted dollars every year. That means we can take a big bite out of the cost of care just by fixing the deficiencies in the way it's delivered and paid for. That's what the ACA is for.

Prices are generally ignored, except in scattered provisions like the ACA's new requirements that hospitals post their prices publicly (the public health insurance option proposal was the primary tool for tackling prices--and even that was an indirect attempt--but that was stripped out long before the final legislation passed).

 

[chikenwing]

Certainly not the Gov any of them from any of the parties.

My doctor,the extremely rare times I go, and myself.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well, if you're like most Americans, the answer is Barack Obama.

Poll: Obama has double-digit advantage on health care, Medicare - POLITICO.com

More from the new CNN poll out this afternoon: President Obama has a double-digit lead over Mitt Romney on both the issues of health care and Medicare.

According to the poll, 54 percent of likely voters think Obama would better handle the issue of health care, compared with 45 percent for Romney. Before the conventions, on Aug. 22-23, Obama led by only 1 point on the issue, 49 percent to 48 percent.

On Medicare, the disparity is even more pronounced: Obama leads Romney by 11 points, 54 percent to 43 percent, compared with a 1-point lead back in the pre-convention August poll.

Health care is an issue on which the public has been deeply divided, even in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling earlier this summer. And Medicare, though it's been a traditionally winning issue for Democrats, is something Republicans have sought to play offense on after Paul Ryan joined the GOP ticket. These numbers suggest that, at least in terms of messaging at the conventions, Democrats have the upper hand on both issues.

Perhaps that's why Mitt is starting to embrace Obamacare.

Maybe they missed the fact it's no longer healthcare but a tax. So do people think the IRS will take care of them when sick should have been the question.

 

[oreo]

Well, if you're like most Americans, the answer is Barack Obama.

Poll: Obama has double-digit advantage on health care, Medicare - POLITICO.com

More from the new CNN poll out this afternoon: President Obama has a double-digit lead over Mitt Romney on both the issues of health care and Medicare.

According to the poll, 54 percent of likely voters think Obama would better handle the issue of health care, compared with 45 percent for Romney. Before the conventions, on Aug. 22-23, Obama led by only 1 point on the issue, 49 percent to 48 percent.

On Medicare, the disparity is even more pronounced: Obama leads Romney by 11 points, 54 percent to 43 percent, compared with a 1-point lead back in the pre-convention August poll.

Health care is an issue on which the public has been deeply divided, even in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling earlier this summer. And Medicare, though it's been a traditionally winning issue for Democrats, is something Republicans have sought to play offense on after Paul Ryan joined the GOP ticket. These numbers suggest that, at least in terms of messaging at the conventions, Democrats have the upper hand on both issues.

Perhaps that's why Mitt is starting to embrace Obamacare.

I trust Paul Ryan because he is telling us the TRUTH:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJIC7kEq6kw]The Path to Prosperity (Episode 2): Saving Medicare, Visualized - YouTube[/ame]


"Barack Obama is the greatest HOAX ever perpetrated on the American population" Clint Eastwood

 

[oreo]

Well, if you're like most Americans, the answer is Barack Obama.

Poll: Obama has double-digit advantage on health care, Medicare - POLITICO.com

More from the new CNN poll out this afternoon: President Obama has a double-digit lead over Mitt Romney on both the issues of health care and Medicare.

According to the poll, 54 percent of likely voters think Obama would better handle the issue of health care, compared with 45 percent for Romney. Before the conventions, on Aug. 22-23, Obama led by only 1 point on the issue, 49 percent to 48 percent.

On Medicare, the disparity is even more pronounced: Obama leads Romney by 11 points, 54 percent to 43 percent, compared with a 1-point lead back in the pre-convention August poll.

Health care is an issue on which the public has been deeply divided, even in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling earlier this summer. And Medicare, though it's been a traditionally winning issue for Democrats, is something Republicans have sought to play offense on after Paul Ryan joined the GOP ticket. These numbers suggest that, at least in terms of messaging at the conventions, Democrats have the upper hand on both issues.

Perhaps that's why Mitt is starting to embrace Obamacare.

I trust Paul Ryan because he is telling us the TRUTH:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJIC7kEq6kw]The Path to Prosperity (Episode 2): Saving Medicare, Visualized - YouTube[/ame]


"Barack Obama is the greatest HOAX ever perpetrated on the American population" Clint Eastwood

And this is the funniest--though VERY true-explanation of Obamacare in one long sentence--

YOU'VE GOT TO WATCH THIS LOL--it's hilarious.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdnY8r7_fLw]Obamacare Summed Up in One Sentence - YouTube[/ame]

 

[chikenwing]

Myself. I dont trust the government at all.

Odd that you dont mind the government telling you what to do with your body when it comes to health care

The government is telling people that they need to have health insurance so that if they get sick, they are covered. It has nothing to do with the government telling anyone what to do with their body. Now I understand that there are people out there who would rather take their chances and not be forced into buying health insurance, but when everyone who is insured ends up paying for them in the end, do we not have an obligation to those who pay to see to it that those who don't want to actually do?

The sad part of this argument,is there are countless families and people tat can't afford 10-12k a year for health insurance,that carries a huge deductible along with the huge premiums, It not that they don't want to buy it,it that they CAN"T yet the oh so compassionate, tolerant left finds it ok to deride those people.

 

[thereisnospoon]

For a politician to state they can reduce the "cost" of medical care is disingenuous.
They can reduce the "price" but not the cost. What Obama care proposes is to reduce price which requires government to subsidize the cost.

On the contrary, ObamaCare (like most policy proposals that are popular right now) focuses squarely on costs. Our system is bloated, inefficient, and underperforming, leading to hundreds of billions in wasted dollars every year. That means we can take a big bite out of the cost of care just by fixing the deficiencies in the way it's delivered and paid for. That's what the ACA is for.

Prices are generally ignored, except in scattered provisions like the ACA's new requirements that hospitals post their prices publicly (the public health insurance option proposal was the primary tool for tackling prices--and even that was an indirect attempt--but that was stripped out long before the final legislation passed).

Those are nice liberal talking points, but they are not based in fact or reality.
"Prices are ignored"....Sheesh.
ACA is for forming the base for Single Payer....The only reason ACA exists is because Obama's advisers told him his dream of Universal Health insurance could not be realized.
Single payer has almost universal opposition on both sides of the aisle.
Many democrats held their noses and voted for ACA knopwing full well it would cost them votes and anger people back in their districts/States.
Not to worry. ACA will look nothing like it does now once the inside of the Beltway goes through the inevitable change about to take place.

 

[Greenbeard]

Those are nice liberal talking points, but they are not based in fact or reality.

Not at all. You just need to familiarize yourself with what's going on. For a very short overview, see: Health Care Reform and Cost Control

For a much deeper dive into the health care reform provisions of the ACA that will be bending the cost curve and their context, read the excellent Health Care Delivery System Reform and The Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act.

It's also worth reading this chapter of the Institute of Medicine report on lowering costs and improving quality that came out earlier this month: Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to Continuously Learning Health Care in America. Once you'v familiarized yourself with what the ACA is trying to do and what's in it, the IOM's philosophy will sound familiar.

ACA is for forming the base for Single Payer....The only reason ACA exists is because Obama's advisers told him his dream of Universal Health insurance could not be realized.

They must've gotten to him pretty early, since Obama was campaigning on the framework for what became the Affordable Care Act as early as 2007: BarackObama.com | Creating a Healthcare System that Works (although the single national exchange--which did appear in House legislation in 2009--became 51 state exchanges in the Senate bill that passed, and Obama was more than happy to jettison the public option in 2009 in the name of getting reform done).

 

[dblack]

The two people in the nation I trust least on health care are Romney and Obama. They have both been instrumental in driving the effort to bring health care under institutional, corporate/government control. And that's what ACA is about more than anything else: control. It's about mandating conformity and centralizing control of the necessities of life.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Those are nice liberal talking points, but they are not based in fact or reality.

Not at all. You just need to familiarize yourself with what's going on. For a very short overview, see: Health Care Reform and Cost Control

For a much deeper dive into the health care reform provisions of the ACA that will be bending the cost curve and their context, read the excellent Health Care Delivery System Reform and The Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act.

It's also worth reading this chapter of the Institute of Medicine report on lowering costs and improving quality that came out earlier this month: Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to Continuously Learning Health Care in America. Once you'v familiarized yourself with what the ACA is trying to do and what's in it, the IOM's philosophy will sound familiar.

ACA is for forming the base for Single Payer....The only reason ACA exists is because Obama's advisers told him his dream of Universal Health insurance could not be realized.

They must've gotten to him pretty early, since Obama was campaigning on the framework for what became the Affordable Care Act as early as 2007: BarackObama.com | Creating a Healthcare System that Works (although the single national exchange--which did appear in House legislation in 2009--became 51 state exchanges in the Senate bill that passed, and Obama was more than happy to jettison the public option in 2009 in the name of getting reform done).

ACA or any other government program cannot control costs. It's an economic impossibility.
All ACA does is move the pieces around the chess board. Simply transferring expense from one party to another is government trickery. The money HAS to come from somewhere. it just doesn't vanish into outer space. Apparently you libs believe it does.


When ACA gets chopped up and spit out by the GOP, this discussion becomes moot. It is inevitable.

 

[Greenbeard]

ACA or any other government program cannot control costs. It's an economic impossibility.

Changing the way we pay for and deliver health care services is the only way to control health care costs. That's an economic certainty. That means public and private payers alike changing the way they do business.

 

[thereisnospoon]

ACA or any other government program cannot control costs. It's an economic impossibility.

Changing the way we pay for and deliver health care services is the only way to control health care costs. That's an economic certainty. That means public and private payers alike changing the way they do business.

No. That is price control. Not cost control.
Look, the cost to develop new medicines, new technologies, new cures, , education for medical professionals and of course wages will always rise. That is COST. That cannot be controlled.
I cannot believe you are blinded so much by ACA that you do not realize this.
Here's a simpler example.
An event comes to a city. The local hotel owners who during regular periods operate with thin margins to entice people to stay at their hotels. The owners would naturally raise their rates to reflect the increased demand for rooms. The city leaders step in and say to the owners, "you cannot do this. You must charge the rates you normally charge." What does the hotel owner do? He simply refuses to rent rooms to the visitors. Thus creating a shortage. The government stepped in and controlled the price while ignoring the operating costs to the hotel owners.
Or....Say there is a major gasoline supply interruption due to a storm. Katrina for example.
Due to the reduced supply and increased demand, prices rose sharply. Of course the cost of fuel is passed along from the company that drills for the oil, to the refiner to the pipeline company to the distributor to the retailer. All those entities have seen an increase in cost.
The government steps in and says "you may not raise the price. We view it as unfair. You must absorb the cost and sell your product at the price we say you can."...What happens? The companies simply refuse to sell their product at the government mandated loss.
The result is rationing of product.
Government price controls ALWAYS result in disaster.

 

[Greenbeard]

No. That is price control. Not cost control.

No, it isn't. Addressing unexplained variations in care is about costs, not unit prices. Eliminating or minimizing payment structures that incentivize unnecessary volume is about costs, not unit prices. Beginning to reverse the bias for "downstream" specialty care over "upstream" primary care is about costs, no unit prices. Providing better care coordination for adults with chronic illnesses is about costs, not unit prices.

Again, I encourage you to actually read something about the topic. I've given you more than enough above to get you started.

You can even start by reading older USMB threads:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-care-costs-through-better-care-delivery.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...healthcare/132782-bending-the-cost-curve.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...ystem-reorganization-to-bring-down-costs.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-reform-model-lowers-costs-improves-care.html

It remains to be seen if and how prices will be addressed in the future.

 

[thereisnospoon]

No. That is price control. Not cost control.

No, it isn't. Addressing unexplained variations in care is about costs, not unit prices. Eliminating or minimizing payment structures that incentivize unnecessary volume is about costs, not unit prices. Beginning to reverse the bias for "downstream" specialty care over "upstream" primary care is about costs, no unit prices. Providing better care coordination for adults with chronic illnesses is about costs, not unit prices.

Again, I encourage you to actually read something about the topic. I've given you more than enough above to get you started.

You can even start by reading older USMB threads:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-care-costs-through-better-care-delivery.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...healthcare/132782-bending-the-cost-curve.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...ystem-reorganization-to-bring-down-costs.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-reform-model-lowers-costs-improves-care.html

It remains to be seen if and how prices will be addressed in the future.

I would wish to read the opinions of others why?
Look, you're a taker. You want free medical care funded by others. Fine.
I do not. I am with the majority.

 

[thereisnospoon]

No. That is price control. Not cost control.

No, it isn't. Addressing unexplained variations in care is about costs, not unit prices. Eliminating or minimizing payment structures that incentivize unnecessary volume is about costs, not unit prices. Beginning to reverse the bias for "downstream" specialty care over "upstream" primary care is about costs, no unit prices. Providing better care coordination for adults with chronic illnesses is about costs, not unit prices.

Again, I encourage you to actually read something about the topic. I've given you more than enough above to get you started.

You can even start by reading older USMB threads:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-care-costs-through-better-care-delivery.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...healthcare/132782-bending-the-cost-curve.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...ystem-reorganization-to-bring-down-costs.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...-reform-model-lowers-costs-improves-care.html

It remains to be seen if and how prices will be addressed in the future.

All of that is moot.
Technology, medicine, research and development, wages, education, training, construction of facilities..The cost of everything rises. ACA addresses and your responses address none of that.
Just stop it. You are getting nowhere with " Addressing unexplained variations in care is about costs, not unit prices. Eliminating or minimizing payment structures that incentivize unnecessary volume is about costs, not unit prices. Beginning to reverse the bias for "downstream" specialty care over "upstream" primary care is about costs, no unit prices. Providing better care coordination for adults with chronic illnesses is about costs, not unit prices. ".....All of that is purse nonsense. It's political double speak. In other words... a big steaming pile.

 

[Greenbeard]

I would wish to read the opinions of others why?

To erase your ignorance of the subject. The reason most people read anything.

There's a great deal of literature on cost control in health care and a lot of work currently being done on cost control in health care (across the public and private sectors). The ACA and certain related efforts have a significant role to play in that. The information is all available for the perusing.

Look, you're a taker. You want free medical care funded by others. Fine.
I do not. I am with the majority.

Despite me taking great pains to emphasize it, you seem to have vastly missed the point. The goal here is a health system built to meet the challenges and potential of the 21st century.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I would wish to read the opinions of others why?

To erase your ignorance of the subject. The reason most people read anything.

There's a great deal of literature on cost control in health care and a lot of work currently being done on cost control in health care (across the public and private sectors). The ACA and certain related efforts have a significant role to play in that. The information is all available for the perusing.

Look, you're a taker. You want free medical care funded by others. Fine.
I do not. I am with the majority.

Despite me taking great pains to emphasize it, you seem to have vastly missed the point. The goal here is a health system built to meet the challenges and potential of the 21st century.

Despite my attempts to explain ACA in understandable and practical terms, you continue to spew complex terms that mean to confuse and deceive the public.