(10-03-2013 02:19 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 02:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I don't have a problem with the government attempting to reform our health care system.

Who gives a sh*t, that wasn't the question.

The question was stupid.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with everyone having access to healthcare. Starting an Insurance-Government-Healthcare complex isn't a good way of doing it. The real problem with our healthcare is the fact that it's expensive, what's going to lower the cost in Obamacare? Requiring everyone to be insured, while not forcing larger competition between insurance companies isn't going to do it. That's creating demand but limiting the supply to what's in the exchanges.

This isn't to say that the current system wasn't flawed, it most certainly was and it got us Obamacare in the first place.

30 million Americans didn't have health insurance.

The solution was not to crash out the other 270 million so that it sucks equally for everyone.

(10-03-2013 02:39 PM)Smaug Wrote:  30 million Americans didn't have health insurance.

The solution was not to crash out the other 270 million so that it sucks equally for everyone.

The question had nothing to do with Insurance. It was about Health Care. Again, I ask, who did not have access to healthcare?

(10-03-2013 01:29 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 01:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 09:36 PM)psualltheway5 Wrote:  Just curious...

Health care or health insurance?

Obamacare provides health insurance for everyone. It will not provide health care for everyone. In fact, it may make health care unavailable for many for whom it is currently available.

Exactly. too many simpletons equating having some form of "insurance" to getting health care.

If you currently pay nothing and are generally healthy, but on a relatively tight budget, are you suddenly going to go out and get insurance and pay a hundred a month or so? Complete with a 60/40 split and deductible of 5 grand or so? Of course not. You'll pay the 95 bucks for the fine and be done with it.

Without the young, healthy, waiters and waitresses out there signing up, this thing is unsustainable. Funny, these poor suckers that voted for this foolishness are the same ones that are woefully underemployed, if employed at all, and are also the lynchpin that is supposed to make this ponzi scheme work.

When they walk away en masse and simply decide to roll the dice and remain uninsured (by choice, it is still a choice, correct?) how does this thing work?

Any of you bootlickers want to take a shot at that one?

And then when one of them has a catastrophic accident, or a sudden severe illness, they'll visit the ER and maybe not pay for it, and your cost for insurance will continue to rise anyway. All to save a couple bucks. Enjoy.

(10-03-2013 02:39 PM)Smaug Wrote:  30 million Americans didn't have health insurance.

The solution was not to crash out the other 270 million so that it sucks equally for everyone.

Using your numbers, we'll see an increase of at most only 11% or so on our health care system. Seems like that wouldn't be too hard for them to absorb.

Why do you guys keep on acting like on January 1st that 30 million folks are going to run to their doctors for appointments?

(10-03-2013 02:40 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 02:39 PM)Smaug Wrote:  30 million Americans didn't have health insurance.

The solution was not to crash out the other 270 million so that it sucks equally for everyone.

The question had nothing to do with Insurance. It was about Health Care. Again, I ask, who did not have access to healthcare?

Healthcare that didn't bankrupt them in some cases? Or deny them if they had prior conditions? Or was affordable instead of either not paying or being liable for everything at higher costs?

(10-03-2013 02:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Why do you guys keep on acting like on January 1st that 30 million folks are going to run to their doctors for appointments?

It hardly matters whether they all sign up on the same day or not.

So, increase the load by 30 million and cap payments to doctors.

Ignore that it's a tax on the living. Ignore it's the biggest, fastest case of mission creep in our government's history.

Just what do you expect the quality of the healthcare of people who already have it to do?

Up or down. It's a simple question.

(10-03-2013 02:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 02:40 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(10-03-2013 02:39 PM)Smaug Wrote:  30 million Americans didn't have health insurance.

The solution was not to crash out the other 270 million so that it sucks equally for everyone.

The question had nothing to do with Insurance. It was about Health Care. Again, I ask, who did not have access to healthcare?

Healthcare that didn't bankrupt them in some cases? Or deny them if they had prior conditions? Or was affordable instead of either not paying or being liable for everything at higher costs?

LOL...you are still confusing 2 different areas. Having access to health care has nothing to do with pre existing conditions.

Now, again I ask the question...who does not have access to health care?

(10-03-2013 01:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-02-2013 10:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We're going to increase demand by adding 30 million to the insurance rolls, and cut costs by paying docs and other providers less, which will have the inevitable consequence of reducing supply. Tell me how this is going to work without shortages, delays, queues, poor quality and ultimately price spikes.
More people will have health insurance, fewer will have health care.

Curious. When I said that, you called me out for using a talking point and you even disagreed with it. Now, it serves your purpose???

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:We are supposedly increasing demand by adding 30 million insureds (although it's looking like that number is going to be a lot smaller, and the NET number might end up negative).

To quote Hillary, what difference does it make. The 30 million was your--and the left's--number. You either agree that it will be less or you defend 30 million. Which way do you go?

Either way makes no difference regarding my argument about supply shortage. If you cut payments to docs and other providers, you'll ultimately get fewer providers. That's how economics works. And that will mean a supply shortage--at 30 million adds, at 10 million adds, or at a net decrease.

Even CBO noted that in their analysis--you know, the one that the leftists took the first few pages which said Obamacare could reduce the deficit if certain conditions were me, and touted that as saying it would absolutely reduce the deficit, while ignoring the rest of it, which said that those conditions probably would NOT be met, and outlining potential problems with quality and availability of health care.

Way to deflect by picking an insignificant point and harping on it.

We have always wanted to pay for someone else's health insurance.
Thanks for the opportunity. We also wanted to pay four to six times as much for health insurance.
Thank you Obama. Look forward to the added benefit of driving doctors out of practice and millions more
in the waiting rooms, because they will have free health care.