Micheal Moore admits delays in Obamacare to be expected

[Gipper]

news flash you where before and are today and will later..

Unless your of the idea of, don't have insurance, no cash..die....

You really believe some Americans want other Americans to die...Right?

Cons and Rs want Americans without HC to just die.

Come on...admit it?

 

[dogtowner]

No more than job creation happened after Bush tax cuts came into effect!

How did the unemployment get so low then ?

 

[Dr.Who]

100 people want to see a movie...you only let 75% see it...it takes x amount of time

do you think that if you let 100% see it, you expect it to go just as fast without changing the amount of people taking tickets?

How many people would you be fine with not getting proper health care so you can have a faster line? You know I hate traffic to, maybe we just told half the people they can't drive anymore I can get to work faster to.

Sorry if the sick people who did not have care before are screwing up your care, I know there lives are not worth much to you.

Your analogy starts with the assumption that only 75% of people get health care. But in this country 100% of people already get health care and there is not a single person who does not have access to health care.

 

[Dr.Who]

But bob, that's what you're doing now! You, and I, and every one who has private insurance pays for people who do not have insurance because, sooner or later, they end up in the emergency room, needing MORE care than if they had had access to preventive and early detection care.

What the "horrible mandate" tries to do, is to assure that everyone pays his fair share of insurance, so that YOU no longer have to pay food them!

That is not how it is now.

Most of the people who end up in the ER (and not everyone does) end up paying for it themselves when the hospital bills them.

Only a few of those who end up in the ER do not pay for it themselves. Some of them get enrolled on public aid because they cannot pay and some of them defraud the system by not paying though they could. We could eliminate that today by not allowing bankruptcy to let you get out of paying for your medical bills.

Even if we continue with the bankruptcy laws as they are this is still far far better than forcing all Americans to buy a product they may not want or need and the resulting rise in costs that happened with romneycare and is already happening with obamacare. Additionally, if you really do not want to pay for someone else's bankruptcy then just go to doctors who turn these people away (which they are allowed to do if they do not collect federal funds). I am fine with the hospitals attempting to get as many people as possible to pay their bills and then passing on the loss to the rest of us - that is exactly how every other business in this country operates when it comes to those who refuse to pay their bills.

 

[Dr.Who]

What the "horrible mandate" tries to do, is to assure that everyone pays his fair share of insurance, so that YOU no longer have to pay food them!

It in no way attempts to get everyone to pay their share. It is designed so that those who cannot afford insurance don't pay for health care at all and their premiums are paid for by all the rest of us who do pay our bills.

At least in the present system an attempt is made to make people pay their own bills (an attempt which succeeds more than it fails) and the cost they place on the system is only incurred when they declare bankruptcy.

btw, those who chose not to buy insurance do not have any obligation to pay their share of a product that they did not buy. They do have an obligation to pay for their share of health care. You are confusing health care with health insurance.

This is an important distinction. One goal of obamacare is to get as many people buying insurance as possible regardless of what happens with their health care. For as much as you complain about the complicity between private enterprise and the state don't you see that that is what this is? In the short term this benefits insurance companies which is why they supported the bill.

 

[Dr.Who]

If the private healthcare industry has it's way, it might not be. . . However, you haven't seen any dependable, unbiased statistical analyssis saying you would pay more either!

And if a public OPTION, or a NON PROFIT option was introduced to give REAL competition, you would pay less.

It is not an option as long as the individual mandate is a part of it and it will not result in competition as long as the individual mandate is a part of it. The result with be much like the public school system in which everyone pays whether they have kids or not and whether they send those kids to private school or not. It will drive private competition out of business just like it makes it harder for private schools to exist when its customers have to pay for education twice instead of once.

Of course it will cost more. Romney care did cost more plain and simple. Mass. has the hihgest insurance premiums in the nation.

Furthermore while insurance premiums were going up in this nation before obamacare they amount they were going up by was declining. Since obamacare was passe that trend already reversed itself and premiums increased by more than they would have.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/586229/201109271842/Obama-Trauma.htm

 

[Openmind]

It in no way attempts to get everyone to pay their share. It is designed so that those who cannot afford insurance don't pay for health care at all and their premiums are paid for by all the rest of us who do pay our bills.

At least in the present system an attempt is made to make people pay their own bills (an attempt which succeeds more than it fails) and the cost they place on the system is only incurred when they declare bankruptcy.

btw, those who chose not to buy insurance do not have any obligation to pay their share of a product that they did not buy. They do have an obligation to pay for their share of health care. You are confusing health care with health insurance.

This is an important distinction. One goal of obamacare is to get as many people buying insurance as possible regardless of what happens with their health care. For as much as you complain about the complicity between private enterprise and the state don't you see that that is what this is? In the short term this benefits insurance companies which is why they supported the bill.

I obviously disagree. In one hand you insist that everyone gets health care in this country, you say that each one of us ought to pay for our own health care, yet you do not believe that we should all have insurance, so a whole group of people (many of which have NOTHING, so can't even declare bankrupcy) continue to be paid for by us.

So. . .why does ANYONE have insurance at all? Why don't we ALL wait until we get sick, go to the emergency room, get sued for the payment of our health care bill, declare bankrupcy, and start over again. . .until the next "emergency visit?"

What are the "horrible" consequences of a public option, or an universal health care system that make it so much worse than what we have now in this country?

And don't tell me "waiting lines!" I had my accident on July 3. I had "emergency" surgery on July 7 (because of the 4th of July. . .wouldn't want to ruin the doctors' weekend!). A week later my collar bone broke again. . .I was FINALLY able to see an orthopedist surgeon in my area on August 8 (three weeks after my collar bone broke again). My second surgery took place on September 6! I stayed 7 weeks with a broken, displaced collar bone, two of the 7 screws that "held" the metal plate in the bone floating around within millimeters of my lungs and my carotide.

My neighbor needs a shoulder replacement. She was diagnosed in June of this year. Her surgery is now scheduled for November!

Please tell me what FACTUAL "horrors" you fear about a system that would offer a public option or a non-profit option that would allow EVERYONEto have insurance?

 

[GenSeneca]

Please tell me what FACTUAL "horrors" you fear about a system that would offer a public option or a non-profit option that would allow EVERYONEto have insurance?

Where in the US Constitution is the federal government authorized to offer a public option?

As for a non-profit insurance option in the private sector, feel free to start one. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution preventing the private sector from creating a non-profit insurance company to compete against all the for-profit insurance companies. And if you really believe that a non-profit insurance company would do well, why don't any exist?

 

[Dr.Who]

Allowing everyone to get affordable healthcare has not happened when this country WAS prosperous. . .

Everyone had health care so that part of your statement must not be your compliaint. But it was too expensive, thatmust be your compliaint.

Yet the trend of rising premiums was already reversing itself. The trend showed that premiums would have leveled off and might have even decreased.

See graph posted earlier.

No more than job creation happened after Bush tax cuts came into effect!

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...kes-slowed-growth-bush-cuts-promoted-recovery

Aren't you tired of following a pie in the sky?

Not when the pie included premiums that were trending downward and jobs that did materialize.

Again your facts are just not right. Could it be that you get all of your facts from left leaning sources?

 

[Dr.Who]

You really believe some Americans want other Americans to die...Right?

Cons and Rs want Americans without HC to just die.

Come on...admit it?

He says it often enough. But always as a question or as sarcasm. As if that makes it not deception.

 

[Dr.Who]

I obviously disagree. In one hand you insist that everyone gets health care in this country, you say that each one of us ought to pay for our own health care, yet you do not believe that we should all have insurance, so a whole group of people (many of which have NOTHING, so can't even declare bankrupcy) continue to be paid for by us.

Everyone does get health care.
Everyone should pay for their own insurance or not have it.
If they cant declare bankruptcy then they don't need to - they have little to lose.
Some are paid for by us. And that is still a better system than what you have proposed.

So. . .why does ANYONE have insurance at all? Why don't we ALL wait until we get sick, go to the emergency room, get sued for the payment of our health care bill, declare bankrupcy, and start over again. . .until the next "emergency visit?"

Because the purpose of insurance is not to make you healthy, only doctors can do that and then not all the time. The purpose of insurance is to protect your assets. So the reason I have insurance is that I don't want to lose everything I have worked for if I owe a lot of money to doctors.

What are the "horrible" consequences of a public option, or an universal health care system that make it so much worse than what we have now in this country?

Unconstitutional coercion and abuse of the commerce clause setting precedents for a gov that is not limited.

Higher costs than the already high ones we have now.

Government rationing which is worse than market forces.

Medical care that drops to the level of medicaid rather than getting better all the time.

Loss of innovation and progress.

Increase in taxes which are not accountable compared to costs.

Reduction of the private sector and growth of the public sector.

Congress getting more control of our lives to mess up as they do everything else.

Please tell me what FACTUAL "horrors" you fear about a system that would offer a public option or a non-profit option that would allow EVERYONEto have insurance?

As if the unconstitutional nature of it is not enough of a horror.

Like the DMV and Medicaid the horrors are not in the indivudual monstrosaties but in the general pit of mediocrity our health care will fall into.

But as one example of a horror:

"...The uninsured 26-year-old was reportedly stunned when doctors delivered his diagnosis - breast cancer - and shortly after was denied coverage through the state health insurance program, Medicaid, which provides medical treatment for breast cancer patients merely because he’s a man. ...

CMS has argued in the past that it would take an act of Congress to allow men to be covered for breast cancer visits. ...

Yet, in South Carolina, 16 men with breast cancer diagnoses have applied for coverage through the Medicaid breast and cervical cancer program since 2007 and have been turned down....

ensland, Health and Human Services spokesman, told the South Carolina paper.

"We want to cover this guy," says Stensland, "but we simply can't."...

The American Cancer Society estimates that 2,140 new cases of breast cancer in men are diagnosed annually in the U.S. While roughly 1,180 women are enrolled in the treatment coverage program, according to the department's most recent figures."

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/194936/20110809/man-breast-cancer-patient-refused-treatment.htm

 

[Dr.Who]

Where in the US Constitution is the federal government authorized to offer a public option?

As for a non-profit insurance option in the private sector, feel free to start one. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution preventing the private sector from creating a non-profit insurance company to compete against all the for-profit insurance companies. And if you really believe that a non-profit insurance company would do well, why don't any exist?

Several do and have exist(ed) to serve niches of people who did not like regular insurance.

One company that does not exist now was created to provide insurance to deaf people who otherwise had been denied. It was not for profit but went out of business when regular insurance companies stopped denying people who were deaf. (this one was primarily an auto insurance (which is why deaf people were denied) company but did offer health insurance too)

Another one is described here:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/8872-dr-good

 

[GenSeneca]

Several do and have exist(ed) to serve niches of people who did not like regular insurance.

One company that does not exist now was created to provide insurance to deaf people who otherwise had been denied. It was not for profit but went out of business when regular insurance companies stopped denying people who were deaf. (this one was primarily an auto insurance (which is why deaf people were denied) company but did offer health insurance too)

Another one is described here:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/8872-dr-good

The premise is that people would flock to non-profit because they would have lower rates compared to companies who operate for profit. As you point out, reality shows that such non-profits haven't been able to survive competition against for profit companies.

 

[Dr.Who]

The premise is that people would flock to non-profit because they would have lower rates compared to companies who operate for profit. As you point out, reality shows that such non-profits haven't been able to survive competition against for profit companies.

The insurance industry as a whole only takes 4% profits, much less than many other industries.

I think a 4% advantage plus the tax advantages would be plenty large enough for a non-profit company to not only flourish but to outcompete a for profit company.

I would assume that the for profit companies have been given some special advantages by the gov that is supposed to make sure that all have an equal opportunity.

 

[Openmind]

The insurance industry as a whole only takes 4% profits, much less than many other industries.

I think a 4% advantage plus the tax advantages would be plenty large enough for a non-profit company to not only flourish but to outcompete a for profit company.

I would assume that the for profit companies have been given some special advantages by the gov that is supposed to make sure that all have an equal opportunity.

Then, why is our health care cost so much higher than any other developped country?

The for profit health care insurance are using price fixing (although it is illegal), to keep the premiums high. This would not be allowed to happen if REAL competition existed.

I personally resent looking at my health, and my kids' health and ANYONE's health as an "INDUSTRY."
But, to each its own!