Quote
could face expensive drug costs
People with serious pre-existing diseases, precisely those the president aimed to help with ObamaCare, could find themselves paying for expensive drug treatments with no help from the health care exchanges.
Those with expensive diseases such as lupus or multiple sclerosis face something called a "closed drug formulary."
Dr. Scott Gottlieb of the American Enterprise Institute explains,"if the medicine that you need isn't on that list, it's not covered at all. You have to pay completely out of pocket to get that medicine, and the money you spend doesn't count against your deductible, and it doesn't count against your out of pocket limits, so you're basically on your own."
The plan had claimed it would rescue those with serious pre-existing conditions.
"So it could be that a MS patient could be expected to pay $62,000 just for one medication," says Dr. Daniel Kantor, who treats MS patients and others with neurological conditions near Jacksonville, Florida. "That's a possiblity under the new ObamaCare going on right now."
How many people are going to die as a result of this failed liberal experiment? :sad: :sad:
The fact that they are killing the financial model of a specialist physician practice means lots of oncologists, cardiologists, etc will not be there to help you in the future. So yeah, these misguided liberal policies are going to kill a lot of people over the next several years and probably kill somebody you love at some point.
That's why I have a deep and unabiding contempt for these assholes.
Quote from: redbeard on February 16, 2014, 10:30:34 AM
How many people are going to die as a result of this failed liberal experiment? :sad: :sad:
Very sad to think of all those unfortunate people who will not have meds because they are not covered. What about patients with cancer who need chemo or radiation?? Will they too be denied necessary treatment and thus face early and agonizing death?? I just hope pain meds are not included on list of not covered meds -- that would really be intolerable.
It is really scary to think what these liberals might be capable of -- maybe instead of pain pills for terminally ill, they will just start euthanizing them.
Quote from: Little Nan on February 16, 2014, 11:19:27 AM
Very sad to think of all those unfortunate people who will not have meds because they are not covered. What about patients with cancer who need chemo or radiation?? Will they too be denied necessary treatment and thus face early and agonizing death?? I just hope pain meds are not included on list of not covered meds -- that would really be intolerable.
It is really scary to think what these liberals might be capable of -- maybe instead of pain pills for terminally ill, they will just start euthanizing them.
Death panels anyone? :blink: :blink:
Obamacare will pay for you to go to a doctor so the doctor can tell you your medication isn't covered.
Brilliant.
Understand. The only way this smelly pile of crap can even begin to pay for itself, is to let more than a few people die. Check out socialized medicine in Europe, where the doctors are killing people.
Quote from: mdgiles on February 16, 2014, 12:25:55 PM
Understand. The only way this smelly pile of crap can even begin to pay for itself, is to let more than a few people die. Check out socialized medicine in Europe, where the doctors are killing people.
Maybe the way to explain it to young liberals is if mommy and daddy have to burn up all their savings paying for meds there won't be anything left for them to inherit. They may have to go to work and their lifestyle will have to change!! :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Quote from: mdgiles on February 16, 2014, 12:25:55 PM
Understand. The only way this smelly pile of crap can even begin to pay for itself, is to let more than a few people die. Check out socialized medicine in Europe, where the doctors are killing people.
We have friends who live in Canada, who also have socialized medicine. They say it is free, but due to a shortage of specialty doctors in the system, if you need an operation you are put on a waiting list and must wait your turn. This could be up to a couple of years and by then it may be too late. My Canadian friends seem to accept this system, as they probably don't know anything else. If we are headed in that direction, most of us will be shocked to say the least. But we are getting bad health care and must pay a hefty price for it. :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:
Don't all insurance plans have a drug formulary? Even before Obamacare? Its a list of what medicines will be covered and what wont. The private insurance you may be on now definitely has a drug formulary.
Quote from: lindcamp on February 16, 2014, 04:01:23 PM
Don't all insurance plans have a drug formulary? Even before Obamacare? Its a list of what medicines will be covered and what wont. The private insurance you may be on now definitely has a drug formulary.
That is not the issue. The issue is Obamacare was supposed to cover everything.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 16, 2014, 04:04:53 PM
That is not the issue. The issue is Obamacare was supposed to cover everything.
There is no insurance card that says "Obamacare" on it. Obamacare lets you go on your state exchange and purchase a plan from different companies like Bluecross or Cigna for example.
Yes these plans will have drug formularies just as they did before. The formulary will vary from plan to plan from state to state.
So its meaningless to state what "Obamacare" covers because its an overarching guideline and not an insurance company. Which plan, in which state, do you find lacking?
Quote from: lindcamp on February 16, 2014, 04:14:54 PM
There is no insurance card that says "Obamacare" on it. Obamacare lets you go on your state exchange and purchase a plan from different companies like Bluecross or Cigna for example.
Yes these plans will have drug formularies just as they did before. The formulary will vary from plan to plan from state to state.
So its meaningless to state what "Obamacare" covers because its an overarching guideline and not an insurance company. Which plan, in which state, do you find lacking?
Was Obamacare sold as something to lower costs and prevent people from financial disasters due to health issues?
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 16, 2014, 04:24:39 PM
Was Obamacare sold as something to lower costs and prevent people from financial disasters due to health issues?
So you ignore my question but ask one of your own?
Well since I asked first; What drug is not being covered, on what plan, in what state, that you feel is insufficient? Afterall, thats the topic of this thread. Otherwise this is just Gottlieb explaning how a formulary has always worked and throwing in some vague speculation for good measure.
Notice he's not saying those drugs aren't covered? He's saying IF they aren't on the formulary, they wouldn't be covered. .....Well duh.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/16/obamacare-patients-with-serious-pre-existing-diseases-could-face-expensive-drug/?intcmp=latestnews (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/16/obamacare-patients-with-serious-pre-existing-diseases-could-face-expensive-drug/?intcmp=latestnews)
sorry, I thought I posted this. It is the link to the OP with additional information
Quote from: lindcamp on February 16, 2014, 04:37:35 PM
So you ignore my question but ask one of your own?
Well since I asked first; What drug is not being covered, on what plan, in what state, that you feel is insufficient? Afterall, thats the topic of this thread. Otherwise this is just Gottlieb explaning how a formulary has always worked and throwing in some vague speculation for good measure.
Notice he's not saying those drugs aren't covered? He's saying IF they aren't on the formulary, they wouldn't be covered. .....Well duh.
The exchanges are after the fact. The need for Obamacre was sold to us as protection from doctors that do unnecessary procedures for profit, health insurance companies that do not cover certain procedures and medicines and people to maximize products and pharmaceutical companies that make certain medicine too expensive for many people to buy to maximize profits. So when Obama tells us Obamacare will prevent all that and that people will no longer have to choose between a mortgage payment or health care or will prevent bankruptcy due to medical costs the people obviously and rightly expected that to include all medication.
Oh and unless you are 12 years old don't say "duh"....
Quote from: redbeard on February 16, 2014, 04:43:06 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/16/obamacare-patients-with-serious-pre-existing-diseases-could-face-expensive-drug/?intcmp=latestnews (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/16/obamacare-patients-with-serious-pre-existing-diseases-could-face-expensive-drug/?intcmp=latestnews)
sorry, I thought I posted this. It is the link to the OP with additional information
"I'm having to work a second job, to pay for ObamaCare," she adds. "For somebody with lupus, that's not an easy thing. If I can't afford to continue to pay for ObamaCare, I don't get my medicine. I don't get to see my doctors."
Looks like the insurance plan she got through Obamacare is paying for her meds just fine. She just got off Tennessee welfare insurance and she now pays 350 a month for good insurance like the rest of us.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 16, 2014, 05:06:35 PM
The exchanges are after the fact. The need for Obamacre was sold to us as protection from doctors that do unnecessary procedures for profit, health insurance companies that do not cover certain procedures and medicines and people to maximize products and pharmaceutical companies that make certain medicine too expensive for many people to buy to maximize profits. So when Obama tells us Obamacare will prevent all that and that people will no longer have to choose between a mortgage payment or health care or will prevent bankruptcy due to medical costs the people obviously and rightly expected that to include all medication.
Oh and unless you are 12 years old don't say "duh"....
Ok, so what's the medication that isn't included that has everyone so worked up?
Quote from: lindcamp on February 16, 2014, 05:18:09 PM
Ok, so what's the medication that isn't included that has everyone so worked up?
It varies from state to state. And it's not just coverage but what individual medicines cost under Obamacare and deductibles, co pays etc. None of this was suppose to happen.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 16, 2014, 05:25:23 PM
It varies from state to state. And it's not just coverage but what individual medicines cost under Obamacare and deductibles, co pays etc. None of this was suppose to happen.
Isn't that exactly what was supposed to happen? Give americans the option of a range of plans for different prices? All meeting certain minimum guidelines such as no yearly maximums, kids on till 26, etc.
If your healthy and young you might want plan A from Cigna. Its cheaper but has a high deductible. If your older, you might want plan B from Bluecross. It costs more but has better coverage.
No one ever said everyone gets the same plan called "obamacare" and this is what it costs and this is what it covers.
If you have a pre existing condition you need to research the plans and choose one that best covers your needs.
If it varies from state to state, that would be something to write your governor about?
Quote from: lindcamp on February 16, 2014, 05:36:50 PM
Isn't that exactly what was supposed to happen? Give americans the option of a range of plans for different prices? All meeting certain minimum guidelines such as no yearly maximums, kids on till 26, etc.
If your healthy and young you might want plan A from Cigna. Its cheaper but has a high deductible. If your older, you might want plan B from Bluecross. It costs more but has better coverage.
No one ever said everyone gets the same plan called "obamacare" and this is what it costs and this is what it covers.
If you have a pre existing condition you need to research the plans and choose one that best covers your needs.
If it varies from state to state, that would be something to write your governor about?
Range of plans? How many make up a "range"
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 16, 2014, 05:40:42 PM
Range of plans? How many make up a "range"
Range: a set of different things of the same general type.
Quote from: lindcamp on February 16, 2014, 05:42:34 PM
Range: a set of different things of the same general type.
Well Range let me see....
1) I am a senior citizen past the age of over 70, I will now be paying 7000$ more for insurance more this year then last year.
2) I now pay 3 to 6 time more for our Rx's then last year.
3) My wife can not get pregnant and I can not get pregnant, but we have to pay for that as it is the LAW.
4) b o said the new insurance would save us around 3000$ a year.
5) b o is out and out lying.
Quote from: lindcamp on February 16, 2014, 05:42:34 PM
Range: a set of different things of the same general type.
To which there are little in the exchanges...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 16, 2014, 07:09:44 PM
To which there are little in the exchanges...
I'm pretty sure even in states with poor variety, the few choices all cover MS meds and lupus meds etc. Which is the whole point of this thread.
Quote from: lindcamp on February 16, 2014, 08:12:09 PM
I'm pretty sure even in states with poor variety, the few choices all cover MS meds and lupus meds etc. Which is the whole point of this thread.
Yes but if the deductibles and co pays aren't affordable then it's safe to say that the drugs really aren't covered...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 16, 2014, 08:16:15 PM
Yes but if the deductibles and co pays aren't affordable then it's safe to say that the drugs really aren't covered...
Actually its wildly misleading to say that.
That's like saying a Ferrari can't go faster than 50mph. Then after being proven wrong claiming "Yes, but if people can't afford the price of the car, then its safe to say the cars top speed is 45mph"
Why distort characteristics of the plan in order to comment on the price? That woman got her lupus meds with a 350 a month policy. Thats cheaper than my private insurance and entirely reasonable.
Quote from: lindcamp on February 16, 2014, 08:27:14 PM
Actually its wildly misleading to say that.
That's like saying a Ferrari can't go faster than 50mph. Then after being proven wrong claiming "Yes, but if people can't afford the price of the car, then its safe to say the cars top speed is 45mph"
Why distort characteristics of the plan in order to comment on the price? That woman got her lupus meds with a 350 a month policy. Thats cheaper than my private insurance and entirely reasonable.
No it is not. There have been plenty of studies and examples...
Are you seriously claiming that even though people can get lupus and ms medicine covered on these policies, since some people can't afford the policy, its accurate to say the policy doesn't cover those meds?
The best way to comment on high costs of insurance is to falsely claim it doesn't cover meds?
Quote from: lindcamp on February 16, 2014, 08:53:01 PM
Are you seriously claiming that even though people can get lupus and ms medicine covered on these policies, since some people can't afford the policy, its accurate to say the policy doesn't cover those meds?
The best way to comment on high costs of insurance is to falsely claim it doesn't cover meds?
Yes.
It was all supposed to be affordable. Right or wrong?
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 16, 2014, 08:59:33 PM
Yes.
It was all supposed to be affordable. Right or wrong?
Correct!
What about the woman in redbeards link that had to take a second job to get her obamacare policy so she can get her lupus meds. The fact that she's receiving the lupus meds proves its covered. Your just being silly.
Quote from: lindcamp on February 16, 2014, 09:11:50 PM
Correct!
What about the woman in redbeards link that had to take a second job to get her obamacare policy so she can get her lupus meds. The fact that she's receiving the lupus meds proves its covered. Your just being silly.
No I am not. When you have to take a second job to pay for medication Obama promised would be affordable it's not really "covered".
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 16, 2014, 09:18:29 PM
No I am not. When you have to take a second job to pay for medication Obama promised would be affordable it's not really "covered".
When you have to take a second job, its not really "affordable". It is "covered".
If it wasn't covered she would pay the 350 a month and still not get the meds. Thats not the case.
Quote from: lindcamp on February 16, 2014, 09:22:40 PM
When you have to take a second job, its not really "affordable". It is "covered".
If it wasn't covered she would pay the 350 a month and still not get the meds. Thats not the case.
Ah Semantics. The last stand for Obamacare.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1076.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw441%2FKrellkneen%2Ftumblr_m7b8upPv6V1rbxdjvo1_500_zpsedd78a9d.gif&hash=1aacba102da791808e3ce0b3dd9ec376a2eec877)
If you can't afford it whether or not it is "covered" is irrelevant.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 16, 2014, 09:30:04 PM
Ah Semantics. The last stand for Obamacare.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1076.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw441%2FKrellkneen%2Ftumblr_m7b8upPv6V1rbxdjvo1_500_zpsedd78a9d.gif&hash=1aacba102da791808e3ce0b3dd9ec376a2eec877)
If you can't afford it whether or not it is "covered" is irrelevant.
Thats not semantics....thats just the correct usage of those two words. You had them mixed up.
Quote from: lindcamp on February 16, 2014, 09:35:51 PM
Thats not semantics....thats just the correct usage of those two words. You had them mixed up.
Awesome. Is Obamacare doing what Obama said it would do?
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 16, 2014, 09:37:31 PM
Awesome. Is Obamacare doing what Obama said it would do?
No it's not, I'm not a fan. I just try to debunk false and misleading news stories when I see them. My only claim was this drug formulary thing is nothing to get worked up about.
Quote from: lindcamp on February 16, 2014, 09:41:13 PM
No it's not, I'm not a fan. I just try to debunk false and misleading news stories when I see them. My only claim was this drug formulary thing is nothing to get worked up about.
You have debunked nothing...
And you did an awesome job of wasting energy. But it's not a total loss. The forum needs a new Hall Monitor..
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 16, 2014, 09:43:30 PM
You have debunked nothing...
And you did an awesome job of wasting energy. But it's not a total loss. The forum needs a new Hall Monitor..
Well that's ok. I'm just glad the poor lady ended up getting her lupus meds covered through her Obamacare. :biggrin:
Quote from: lindcamp on February 16, 2014, 09:45:54 PM
Well that's ok. I'm just glad the poor lady ended up getting her lupus meds covered through her Obamacare. :biggrin:
If a person can't afford the premium or the deductible or the co pay their medication isn't covered.
Game
Set
match
Bert leaves the room whistling...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 16, 2014, 09:47:54 PM
If a person can't afford the premium or the deductible or the co pay their medication isn't covered.
Game
Set
match
Bert leaves the room whistling...
As is true of every insurance in the history of mankind.
Quote from: Little Nan on February 16, 2014, 01:49:26 PM
We have friends who live in Canada, who also have socialized medicine. They say it is free, but due to a shortage of specialty doctors in the system, if you need an operation you are put on a waiting list and must wait your turn. This could be up to a couple of years and by then it may be too late. My Canadian friends seem to accept this system, as they probably don't know anything else. If we are headed in that direction, most of us will be shocked to say the least. But we are getting bad health care and must pay a hefty price for it. :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:
Know I have stated this many times on this forum, but since UN ranks Norway at the top in healthcare and US liberals view Norway as a model I will state it again.
To use some anecdotal examples from my own family, my grandfather waited 6 months before cancer treatment could start due to long waiting lines, and he had to wait 2 years before the hospital committee decided to give the specific medicine needed only to be then dissaproved by the hospital manager and by then it was already too late even if he had approved it, my grandfather was dead. My mother now is waiting treatment because she is sick, the problem is that the committee on this area only meets once every other month to approve or disapprove people for check/treatment, so we don't know what she has and by the time we do know it might already be too late. You can get normal appointment with doctor in 2-5 days, but getting the real scans or general diagnosis can take months because the doctors too need to deal with bureaucracy to get approval for anything.
But to give some facts about Norway "great" single payer system
In 1965 there were one doctor for 940 people, in 2000 there were one doctor for 295 people. Yet the number of patients that has waited above 6 months for treatment was in 1995 over 95000 patients and in 2010 it had risen to over 260,000 patients. This is despite the expenditures of Norwegian healthcare cost has quadrupled in the last 30 years, and was in 2003 10% of total GNP.
Adjusted for inflation the price for each person in the healthcare system has increased by 70% in the last 30 years and to top it off the National Health Care patient bed capacity has decreased 67% in the last 25 years from 21000 to 14200 capacity.
But like they said on National Workers Party TV Channel
(a service you are obligated to pay $450 annal tax for) last night, the healthcare is as much mine as it is yours, wellfare is security and Norway has the best system of health in the world. Thank you Goebbels :laugh:
Medicine costs will go to more than $2,500 per month for me if this goes through.
Obamacare is killing America...starting with me.
Quote from: lindcamp on February 16, 2014, 09:45:54 PM
Well that's ok. I'm just glad the poor lady ended up getting her lupus meds covered through her Obamacare. :biggrin:
It seems to me you have missed the point of the entire thread. The lady was paying about $52 per month for her health insurance and satisfied with the coverage. She believed the Obama lies that if you like your coverage you could keep it. However, her plan was determined to "sub-standard" by the law. So she got caught in the trap. No one debates each plan has its own formulary, but she lost the option of keeping what she was satisfied with.
Quote from: lindcamp on February 16, 2014, 09:41:13 PM
No it's not, I'm not a fan. I just try to debunk false and misleading news stories when I see them. My only claim was this drug formulary thing is nothing to get worked up about.
Take it from an old man. Your not yet old enough to get worked up yet. If you live past 65 you will get worked up over the drug formulary list.
Quote from: walkstall on February 17, 2014, 07:23:45 AM
Take it from an old man. Your not yet old enough to get worked up yet. If you live past 65 you will get worked up over the drug formulary list.
We will see a cost-containment effort guaranteed to yank seniors off the medicines which DO work (all of which are NOT generic) and forced into accepting whatever the government SAYS they will pay for. I suffered for years under the VA and under civilian doctors, working away from the generic stuff. To go back to that now would not just materially affect my health but also bankrupt myself and my wife.
You bet I hate that know-nothing anti-American white-hating piece of trash who came up with this. His policies will be ruinous to us all. It will just take some time for the younger people to realize that, but by then today's mistakes will be cast in stone.
It is the small things that start to get to you. I have taken thyroid medicine for over 20 years now. Because I take a generic, Levothyroxine, I was getting my prescription for $3.99 at the pharmacy. I am now being charged $10 a month which is my co-pay for generic drugs..
According to Drug Price Search, currently, a 30-day supply of Tirosint 100 mcg now costs approximately $75. Synthroid costs approximately $34, and generic levothyroxine costs approximately $12.
http://thyroid.about.com/b/2013/08/06/the-wild-west-of-thyroid-drugs-forests-levothroid-discontinued-levoxyl-recall-continues-synthroid-and-tirosint-prices-rise.htm (http://thyroid.about.com/b/2013/08/06/the-wild-west-of-thyroid-drugs-forests-levothroid-discontinued-levoxyl-recall-continues-synthroid-and-tirosint-prices-rise.htm)
I have found a way around this by ordering on-line with a 90 day prescription. As long as my levels stay the same I am ok but since my thyroid levels are a moving target sometimes I could end up with several different doses each costing me $20 for 90 days. I also find it interesting that this all happened January 1st.
Toy
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-1ef8r4UfDac%2FUo6NA5_S64I%2FAAAAAAAA1fU%2FfO4v_GEK-I0%2Fs400%2Fbatman_and_barack.jpg&hash=13d181be215d211f304447266e07773059ec018e)
Quote from: walkstall on February 17, 2014, 05:57:17 PM
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-1ef8r4UfDac%2FUo6NA5_S64I%2FAAAAAAAA1fU%2FfO4v_GEK-I0%2Fs400%2Fbatman_and_barack.jpg&hash=13d181be215d211f304447266e07773059ec018e)
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Shaboom
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 16, 2014, 05:06:35 PM
The exchanges are after the fact. The need for Obamacre was sold to us as protection from doctors that do unnecessary procedures for profit, health insurance companies that do not cover certain procedures and medicines and people to maximize products and pharmaceutical companies that make certain medicine too expensive for many people to buy to maximize profits.
The 'Need' for Obamacare, or more appropriately health care reform, was that our old medical system was broken. yes, I get called a RINO on this particular issue all the time, but bear with me for a moment.
It would be difficult for any sane person to argue that our old medical system was working, when we were producing some of the worst health care outcomes of any first world state, and yet spending
more money per capita on health care than all these better-producing states. And we had people literally dying because of lack of health care. Our system was broken and desperately needed to be fixed.
However, while I can reluctantly credit the democrats for genuinely trying to fix a problem that needed to be fixed, I am amazed (and yet nor surprised) by their ability to take a bad situation and make it worse. Obamacare solved few to none of the serious problems of the old system, and adds a whole bunch of new problems on top of them. I was thrilled when a serious health-care reform plan was announced, and horrified with the burocratic drivel we ended up with.
Obamacare is a catastrophe, but lets not kid ourselves: we cant go back to the way things were which was also pretty weak. The US needs proper, sane health care reform.
Quote from: Gaunt on February 18, 2014, 02:12:36 AM
The 'Need' for Obamacare, or more appropriately health care reform, was that our old medical system was broken. yes, I get called a RINO on this particular issue all the time, but bear with me for a moment.
It was not "broken".
Quote
It would be difficult for any sane person to argue that our old medical system was working, when we were producing some of the worst health care outcomes of any first world state, and yet spending more money per capita on health care than all these better-producing states. And we had people literally dying because of lack of health care. Our system was broken and desperately needed to be fixed.
Incorrect. We have the best medical system on the planet. It had too much government, but that is an easy fix with conservatives in office.
Quote
However, while I can reluctantly credit the democrats for genuinely trying to fix a problem that needed to be fixed,
What problem? You don't solve a problem of a system that has too much government with more government. Please elaborate on your logic.
Quote
I am amazed (and yet nor surprised) by their ability to take a bad situation and make it worse. Obamacare solved few to none of the serious problems of the old system, and adds a whole bunch of new problems on top of them. I was thrilled when a serious health-care reform plan was announced, and horrified with the burocratic drivel we ended up with.
What health care plan were you thrilled about? And at what point did you think this whole thing was about health care?
Quote
Obamacare is a catastrophe, but lets not kid ourselves: we cant go back to the way things were which was also pretty weak. The US needs proper, sane health care reform.
Wrong. We need to go back to our old system, at the least, and reduce government to bring about a system that is consumer-centric.
Quote from: Gaunt on February 18, 2014, 02:12:36 AM
The 'Need' for Obamacare, or more appropriately health care reform, was that our old medical system was broken. yes, I get called a RINO on this particular issue all the time, but bear with me for a moment.
It wasn't broken. Over 277 million had coverage. Anyone can go to the ER and be treated. Yes there were problems but the majority of those problems were caused by the government.
QuoteIt would be difficult for any sane person to argue that our old medical system was working, when we were producing some of the worst health care outcomes of any first world state, and yet spending more money per capita on health care than all these better-producing states. And we had people literally dying because of lack of health care. Our system was broken and desperately needed to be fixed.
See above
QuoteHowever, while I can reluctantly credit the democrats for genuinely trying to fix a problem that needed to be fixed, I am amazed (and yet nor surprised) by their ability to take a bad situation and make it worse. Obamacare solved few to none of the serious problems of the old system, and adds a whole bunch of new problems on top of them. I was thrilled when a serious health-care reform plan was announced, and horrified with the burocratic drivel we ended up with.
Nothing in the ACA address any of the problems with our old system aside from preexisting conditions.
QuoteObamacare is a catastrophe, but lets not kid ourselves: we cant go back to the way things were which was also pretty weak. The US needs proper, sane health care reform.
Really? More people had coverage and access to healthcare before Obamacare :rolleyes:
Quote from: Mountainshield on February 17, 2014, 12:34:24 AM
Know I have stated this many times on this forum, but since UN ranks Norway at the top in healthcare and US liberals view Norway as a model I will state it again.
To use some anecdotal examples from my own family, my grandfather waited 6 months before cancer treatment could start due to long waiting lines, and he had to wait 2 years before the hospital committee decided to give the specific medicine needed only to be then dissaproved by the hospital manager and by then it was already too late even if he had approved it, my grandfather was dead. My mother now is waiting treatment because she is sick, the problem is that the committee on this area only meets once every other month to approve or disapprove people for check/treatment, so we don't know what she has and by the time we do know it might already be too late. You can get normal appointment with doctor in 2-5 days, but getting the real scans or general diagnosis can take months because the doctors too need to deal with bureaucracy to get approval for anything.
But to give some facts about Norway "great" single payer system
In 1965 there were one doctor for 940 people, in 2000 there were one doctor for 295 people. Yet the number of patients that has waited above 6 months for treatment was in 1995 over 95000 patients and in 2010 it had risen to over 260,000 patients. This is despite the expenditures of Norwegian healthcare cost has quadrupled in the last 30 years, and was in 2003 10% of total GNP.
Adjusted for inflation the price for each person in the healthcare system has increased by 70% in the last 30 years and to top it off the National Health Care patient bed capacity has decreased 67% in the last 25 years from 21000 to 14200 capacity.
But like they said on National Workers Party TV Channel (a service you are obligated to pay $450 annal tax for) last night, the healthcare is as much mine as it is yours, wellfare is security and Norway has the best system of health in the world. Thank you Goebbels :laugh:
Wow!!
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 18, 2014, 04:00:30 PM
It wasn't broken. Over 277 million had coverage. Anyone can go to the ER and be treated. Yes there were problems but the majority of those problems were caused by the government.
yes, 277 million had some form of coverage, in many cases coverage which failed to actually cover critical, chronic or expensive health concerns. Thats why such a high percentage of US bankrupcies were health care related. And even regardless of that, 277 is not 320 million.
Your second point is EXACTLY the problem.
Yes, anyone can go to the ER and get treated, though only for emergent conditions (good luck getting chemo from the ER).
But then, what happens when those people go to the ER for emergent conditions? They go bankrupt and the TAXPAYER pays for their health care.
Quote
Nothing in the ACA address any of the problems with our old system aside from preexisting conditions.
Really? More people had coverage and access to healthcare before Obamacare :rolleyes:
Agreed completely. perhaps you missed the point where I said Obamacare is a catastrophe that does not fix any of the old problems (save, as you said, pre-existing conditions), while creating a host of new problems.
Nothing in my post could in any way be construed as a defence of the abominable ACA, just pointing out that our old status quo was seriously lacking as well.
Quote from: taxed on February 18, 2014, 11:20:21 AM
It was not "broken".
perhaps 'broken' was overstating it, but sub-optimal for sure.
QuoteIncorrect. We have the best medical system on the planet.
Did we? Thats not backed by any data I have ever seen.
We have the best top hospitals in the world, very true. But 99.99% of Americans dont go to Johns Hopkins of Chicago general.
Our average level of care as measured by health care outcomes was below a number of our first world peers, and thats only for those people who were insured.
We are America, we can do better than that.
Sadly, what was got was the ACA, which took most of the problems that existed and either didnt solve them or made them worse. Way to Go Obama.
Quote
What problem? You don't solve a problem of a system that has too much government with more government. Please elaborate on your logic.
I think 'too much government' is a bit of a simplistic summary of the existing problems. yes, overregulation was part of it, but our mal[practice system is broken, and the fact that the poor use ERs as general clinics at the taxpayer's expense was a huge problem.
QuoteWhat health care plan were you thrilled about? And at what point did you think this whole thing was about health care?
Wrong. We need to go back to our old system, at the least, and reduce government to bring about a system that is consumer-centric.
You mistake me. I was never thrilled about any proposed plan. I was (briefly and naively) thrilled that someone was trying to fix American health care. sadly the cure turned out to be far worse than the problems.
Quote from: Mountainshield on February 17, 2014, 12:34:24 AM
Know I have stated this many times on this forum, but since UN ranks Norway at the top in healthcare and US liberals view Norway as a model I will state it again.
I dont know Norway: never been though I would like to.
My model of choice would likely be Germany (where I actually am, at this moment).
-Germany has better average health care outcomes for almost all medical services than the United States,
-Germany spends significantly less per capita on health care than the United States,
-wait times for procedures and to see specialists in Germany are on average
less than in the United States.
Quote from: Gaunt on February 19, 2014, 03:24:59 AM
yes, 277 million had some form of coverage, in many cases coverage which failed to actually cover critical, chronic or expensive health concerns. Thats why such a high percentage of US bankrupcies were health care related. And even regardless of that, 277 is not 320 million.
Your second point is EXACTLY the problem.
Yes, anyone can go to the ER and get treated, though only for emergent conditions (good luck getting chemo from the ER).
But then, what happens when those people go to the ER for emergent conditions? They go bankrupt and the TAXPAYER pays for their health care.
Agreed completely. perhaps you missed the point where I said Obamacare is a catastrophe that does not fix any of the old problems (save, as you said, pre-existing conditions), while creating a host of new problems.
Nothing in my post could in any way be construed as a defence of the abominable ACA, just pointing out that our old status quo was seriously lacking as well.
"yes, 277 million had some form of coverage, in many cases coverage which failed to actually cover critical, chronic or expensive health concerns. Thats why such a high percentage of US bankrupcies were health care related. And even regardless of that, 277 is not 320 million."
The great majority of these people had the coverage that fit their needs and what they could afford. Their choice. As a country there is no obligation to provide coverage some politician/bureaucrat feels is what best for the masses. The current system is market driven and, while there are opportunities for improvement, the marketplace will adjust to situations like over use of the ER's.
Quote from: Gaunt on February 19, 2014, 03:24:59 AM
yes, 277 million had some form of coverage, in many cases coverage which failed to actually cover critical, chronic or expensive health concerns. Thats why such a high percentage of US bankrupcies were health care related. And even regardless of that, 277 is not 320 million.
Your second point is EXACTLY the problem.
Yes, anyone can go to the ER and get treated, though only for emergent conditions (good luck getting chemo from the ER).
But then, what happens when those people go to the ER for emergent conditions? They go bankrupt and the TAXPAYER pays for their health care.
Agreed completely. perhaps you missed the point where I said Obamacare is a catastrophe that does not fix any of the old problems (save, as you said, pre-existing conditions), while creating a host of new problems.
Nothing in my post could in any way be construed as a defence of the abominable ACA, just pointing out that our old status quo was seriously lacking as well.
If you understood the system as it was designed you would see that it worked fine and it wasn't until the government got involved that problems began to arise.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 19, 2014, 10:57:36 AM
If you understood the system as it was designed you would see that it worked fine and it wasn't until the government got involved that problems began to arise.
One thing I didn't like about the old system was health insurance being tied to my job. Because I'm a mechanic my medical procedure might be 2000, but the plumber down the street might only be charged 1500 for the same exact procedure.
How would you feel about having the state exchanges (with more options) available to everyone, but zero government subsidies for the poor. Basically separating the cost of my medical treatment from my employment. I always felt they should be unrelated.
The portion that my employer pays will be available to me to apply to any plan of my choosing on the exchange.
Quote from: lindcamp on February 19, 2014, 11:13:17 AM
One thing I didn't like about the old system was health insurance being tied to my job. Because I'm a mechanic my medical procedure might be 2000, but the plumber down the street might only be charged 1500 for the same exact procedure.
How would you feel about having the state exchanges (with more options) available to everyone, but zero government subsidies for the poor. Basically separating the cost of my medical treatment from my employment. I always felt they should be unrelated.
The portion that my employer pays will be available to me to apply to any plan of my choosing on the exchange.
It wasn't designed that way. That was started by employers to attract quality employees and became permanent in the 50's thanks to the auto union.
Quote from: lindcamp on February 19, 2014, 11:13:17 AM
One thing I didn't like about the old system was health insurance being tied to my job. Because I'm a mechanic my medical procedure might be 2000, but the plumber down the street might only be charged 1500 for the same exact procedure.
How would you feel about having the state exchanges (with more options) available to everyone, but zero government subsidies for the poor. Basically separating the cost of my medical treatment from my employment. I always felt they should be unrelated.
The portion that my employer pays will be available to me to apply to any plan of my choosing on the exchange.
"Because I'm a mechanic my medical procedure might be 2000, but the plumber down the street might only be charged 1500 for the same exact procedure. "
Please explain what you mean by the above quote. Are you suggesting that providers charge different amounts for the same procedure based on their occupation? If that is so, what is your proof source?
Quote from: lindcamp on February 19, 2014, 11:13:17 AM
One thing I didn't like about the old system was health insurance being tied to my job. Because I'm a mechanic my medical procedure might be 2000, but the plumber down the street might only be charged 1500 for the same exact procedure.
You agree with us conservatives on HSAs. Good boy. (* pats lindcamp on the head *)
Quote
How would you feel about having the state exchanges (with more options) available to everyone, but zero government subsidies for the poor. Basically separating the cost of my medical treatment from my employment. I always felt they should be unrelated.
They should be. Read up on HSAs. It's another concept destroyed by the liberals.
Quote
The portion that my employer pays will be available to me to apply to any plan of my choosing on the exchange.
There doesn't need to be an exchange, unless it's a private one.
Quote from: taxed on February 19, 2014, 11:20:57 AM
They should be. Read up on HSAs. It's another concept destroyed by the liberals.
Thanks for the heads up!
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 19, 2014, 10:57:36 AM
If you understood the system as it was designed you would see that it worked fine and it wasn't until the government got involved that problems began to arise.
I agree that government involvement and over-regulation made things worse.
But it is an enormous stretch to say it was 'fine' when many Americans could not get proper health care, many Americans went bankrupt over health care, and the taxpayer was paying
anyways for tens of thousands of uncovered people using ERs as general practitioners.
It needed to be fixed, or perhaps just 'improved' is a better word.
Of course what we got instead was an asinine liberal concoction that made everything vastly worse.
Quote from: Gaunt on February 19, 2014, 11:22:46 AM
I agree that government involvement and over-regulation made things worse.
But it is an enormous stretch to say it was 'fine' when many Americans could not get proper health care, many Americans went bankrupt over health care, and the taxpayer was paying anyways for tens of thousands of uncovered people using ERs as general practitioners.
It needed to be fixed, or perhaps just 'improved' is a better word.
Of course what we got instead was an asinine liberal concoction that made everything vastly worse.
So you have no idea how the concept was designed.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 19, 2014, 11:24:12 AM
So you have no idea how the concept was designed.
Sorry, that wasn't clear. Which concept?
Quote from: Gaunt on February 19, 2014, 11:31:44 AM
Sorry, that wasn't clear. Which concept?
Our health care system. Do you understand how it was designed and originally implemented? If so explain it to me.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 19, 2014, 11:34:06 AM
Our health care system. Do you understand how it was designed and originally implemented? If so explain it to me.
I assume you mean prior to the ACA.
Honestly? No, I dont really. From what I understood it
wasn't actually designed, it rather came about organically, with increasing government involvement to fill in the gaps in coverage. But as I said, I dont really know.
But, more to the point, I'm not sure its relevant. What matters is the system we ended up with, in 2008. And that system was badly in need of common sense reform.
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 19, 2014, 11:20:45 AM
"Because I'm a mechanic my medical procedure might be 2000, but the plumber down the street might only be charged 1500 for the same exact procedure. "
Please explain what you mean by the above quote. Are you suggesting that providers charge different amounts for the same procedure based on their occupation? If that is so, what is your proof source?
I would say he doesn't know jack about unions contracts. The other union may be giving something up for better health insurance. Some people may give a paid holiday or vacations time for better health insurance. Also plumbers were a closed shop at one time.
Quote from: Gaunt on February 19, 2014, 11:38:41 AM
I assume you mean prior to the ACA.
Honestly? No, I dont really. From what I understood it wasn't actually designed, it rather came about organically, with increasing government involvement to fill in the gaps in coverage. But as I said, I dont really know.
But, more to the point, I'm not sure its relevant. What matters is the system we ended up with, in 2008. And that system was badly in need of common sense reform.
Health insurance was simply a monetary leverage against catastrophic accident or illness. Ir was designed to prevent people from going bankrupt due to medical expenses. What we call today catastrophic insurance. So you paid for everything else. Doctor visits, medication, ER visits, x-rays, mammograms etc.. And health care was affordable because it operated within a free market system. There was actual competition. It was affordable to all except the very poor.
It was when the government got involved that the we began the transformation to the problem we have today. The government began mandating what insurance policies would cover. The more that
had to be covered logically means higher premiums. The more that the doctors had to deal with the government (regulations) and the increasing number of payments that came from insurance companies rather than directly from the patient increased the cost of healthcare. Then factor in outrageous lawsuits that increased the cost of malpractice insurance and you have what we had before Obamacare.
Government created the problem then pledged to fix the problem they caused by replacing the system the broke with a system that was broken to begin with.
Quote from: Gaunt on February 19, 2014, 11:38:41 AM
I assume you mean prior to the ACA.
Honestly? No, I dont really. From what I understood it wasn't actually designed, it rather came about organically, with increasing government involvement to fill in the gaps in coverage. But as I said, I dont really know.
But, more to the point, I'm not sure its relevant. What matters is the system we ended up with, in 2008. And that system was badly in need of common sense reform.
Here's the rub, in 2008 about 80% of the folks were HAPPY with what they had!!
And now???
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 19, 2014, 11:52:05 AM
Health insurance was simply a monetary leverage against catastrophic accident or illness. Ir was designed to prevent people from going bankrupt due to medical expenses. What we call today catastrophic insurance. So you paid for everything else. Doctor visits, medication, ER visits, x-rays, mammograms etc.. And health care was affordable because it operated within a free market system. There was actual competition. It was affordable to all except the very poor.
It was when the government got involved that the we began the transformation to the problem we have today. The government began mandating what insurance policies would cover. The more that had to be covered logically means higher premiums. The more that the doctors had to deal with the government (regulations) and the increasing number of payments that came from insurance companies rather than directly from the patient increased the cost of healthcare. Then factor in outrageous lawsuits that increased the cost of malpractice insurance and you have what we had before Obamacare.
Government created the problem then pledged to fix the problem they caused by replacing the system the broke with a system that was broken to begin with.
Why do these people always confuse health care with insurance? Is it really that difficult of a concept?
Quote from: Ek Ehecatl on February 19, 2014, 12:05:32 PM
Here's the rub, in 2008 about 80% of the folks were HAPPY with what they had!!
And now???
Ok, I dont know how many times I need to repeat this. I will try one more time.
Pointing out the flaws in our old health care system, and there were many, in
no way means I am advocating, approving of, supporting, or endorsing the abomination of Obamacare.
Obamacare has taken our old problems, made them worse, created a host of new problems, and is an utter catastrophe. period.
My point always was and remains, that in 2008 we needed common sense health care reform to fix our system. sadly, that is
not what we got.
Quote from: Gaunt on February 19, 2014, 12:10:06 PM
Ok, I dont know how many times I need to repeat this. I will try one more time.
Pointing out the flaws in our old health care system, and there were many, in no way means I am advocating, approving of, supporting, or endorsing the abomination of Obamacare.
Obamacare has taken our old problems, made them worse, created a host of new problems, and is an utter catastrophe. period.
My point always was and remains, that in 2008 we needed common sense health care reform to fix our system. sadly, that is not what we got.
Oh for fucks sake!
THE GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM. THE SYSTEM WORKED FINE UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT STEPPED IN.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 19, 2014, 12:13:09 PM
Oh for fucks sake!
THE GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM. THE SYSTEM WORKED FINE UNTIL THE GOVERNMENT STEPPED IN.
Very impressive. Also irrelevant.
We agree that excessive government regulation and intervention is part of the problem.
The fact is, it was
not fine, even apart from that. Our average healthcare outcomes were lower than most of our first world peers, we had people without healthcare and using ERs as GPs. This is not a world-beating system. And we deserve a world beating system.
The answer is NOT Obamacare (obviously), but neither is it returning to our 2008 status quo.
That is, and has always been my only point.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 19, 2014, 11:52:05 AM
Health insurance was simply a monetary leverage against catastrophic accident or illness. Ir was designed to prevent people from going bankrupt due to medical expenses. What we call today catastrophic insurance. So you paid for everything else. Doctor visits, medication, ER visits, x-rays, mammograms etc.. And health care was affordable because it operated within a free market system. There was actual competition. It was affordable to all except the very poor.
It sounds idyllic. But I'm sure you can see the problem.
That was a long time ago.
Before MRIs, and PET scans, before 10,000$ a day retrovirals, before chemotherapy and drug cocktails and rehabilitation.
The cost of personal healthcare has boomed, not just because of government intervention (though we agree thats certainly part of it), but because of the development of the health system and health alternatives.
60 years ago if you got cancer, you died. Cost? painkilling drugs and hospice care.
Now if you get cancer your treatments run into $100,000 per month. Obviously, your average person cannot pay for that out of pocket. And there is no 'free market system' that can make that suddenly affordable to an average middle class individual.
Quote from: Gaunt on February 19, 2014, 12:21:37 PM
It sounds idyllic.
More importantly
it worked.
QuoteBut I'm sure you can see the problem.
Yes. The government got involved.
QuoteThat was a long time ago.
Irrelevant.
QuoteBefore MRIs, and PET scans, before 10,000$ a day retrovirals, before chemotherapy and drug cocktails and rehabilitation.
The cost of personal healthcare has boomed, not just because of government intervention (though we agree thats certainly part of it), but because of the development of the health system and health alternatives.
Wrong! The government has stifled the free market. The free market is what establishes prices. Not the government. If the health care industry was allowed to function freely in a free market society the costs of health care will rise but stabilize to a price most can afford. You are also missing the fact that incomes have risen at the same time.
Quote60 years ago if you got cancer, you died. Cost? painkilling drugs and hospice care.
Not if you had catastrophic insurance.
QuoteNow if you get cancer your treatments run into $100,000 per month. Obviously, your average person cannot pay for that out of pocket. And there is no 'free market system' that can make that suddenly affordable to an average middle class individual.
See above.
I have noticed that you ignore any and all mention of the free market. Very telling.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 19, 2014, 12:44:16 PM
More importantly it worked.
For many people, yes.
Quote
Wrong! The government has stifled the free market. The free market is what establishes prices. Not the government. If the health care industry was allowed to function freely in a free market society the costs of health care will rise but stabilize to a price most can afford. You are also missing the fact that incomes have risen at the same time.
Wrong?
Seriously? How exactly do you think the free-market will reduce the price of six months of chemo and radiation therapy to a price any middle or even upper middle class person can pay out of pocket? Right now thats easily half to 3/4 of a million dollars.
The prices probably will go down under a total free market system, somewhat. But they wont drop anywhere near as much as you pretend. The fact that people died of cancer 60 eyars ago was because there were no medical alternatives.
Now there are, and they are increasingly expensive. So expensive, in fact, that people cannot pay for them out of pocket.
Quote
I have noticed that you ignore any and all mention of the free market. Very telling.
I didnt ignore it at all, I simply pointed out that your assertion that the 'free market' would drop the cost of cancer therapy by
90% (which is what it would take to make it even semi-affordable for the middle class) is absurd.
If this were not patently obvious, then allow me to supply further evidence. Elective surgury and medicine is run by the 'free market system' in the US. How much do you think a single MRI costs?
Medical care is incredibly expensive now, vastly more so than it was 60 years ago, and thats ASIDE from the cost increases due to government intervention.
Quote from: Gaunt on February 19, 2014, 12:53:37 PM
For many people, yes.
For the majority.
Quote
Seriously? How exactly do you think the free-market will reduce the price of six months of chemo and radiation therapy to a price any middle or even upper middle class person can pay out of pocket? Right now thats easily half to 3/4 of a million dollars.
What is wrong with you. If you had cancer you would be covered by your catastrophic insurance. That is what is it for. TO PAY FOR YOUR CANCER.
QuoteThe prices probably will go down under a total free market system, somewhat. But they wont drop anywhere near as much as you pretend. The fact that people died of cancer 60 eyars ago was because there were no medical alternatives.
LOL!
The free market encourages medical advancement. so you are wrong again.
QuoteNow there are, and they are increasingly expensive. So expensive, in fact, that people cannot pay for them out of pocket.
In the original system their catsstrophic insurance would have paid for it.
QuoteI didnt ignore it at all, I simply pointed out that your assertion that the 'free market' would drop the cost of cancer therapy by 90% (which is what it would take to make it even semi-affordable for the middle class) is absurd.
What is absurd is you continue to ignore the fact that PEOPLE WOULD NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT AFFORDABILITY BECAUSE THEIR CATASTROPHIC INSURANCE WOULD HAVE COVERED IT.
You are lumping in basic treatment and services with treatment for diseases which would be covered.
QuoteMedical care is incredibly expensive now, vastly more so than it was 60 years ago, and thats ASIDE from the cost increases due to government intervention.
And I explained why but you are ignoring it for some odd reason.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 19, 2014, 01:01:05 PM
What is wrong with you. If you had cancer you would be covered by your catastrophic insurance. That is what is it for. TO PAY FOR YOUR CANCER.
We are arguing at cross purposes. When I said 60 years ago you just died from cancer, its because there was no treatment for cancer. Insurance or no.
Now there is treatment, incredibly expensive treatment, with costs that never existed back in the day.
Quote
The free market encourages medical advancement. so you are wrong again.
Irrelevant. Yes, it does, but that has nothing to do with the issue. The free market would not reduce the price of modern expensive medical treatments and diagnostics to the point where they would be middle class affordable, they are just too expensive by their very nature.
QuoteIn the original system their catsstrophic insurance would have paid for it.[/quote[
Old style (pre-ww2) accident insurance had strict limits on what it would pay, and how much money it would expend, it was also not cheap meaning the poor and lower middle class could not afford it.
QuoteWhat is absurd is you continue to ignore the fact that PEOPLE WOULD NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT AFFORDABILITY BECAUSE THEIR CATASTROPHIC INSURANCE WOULD HAVE COVERED IT.
What an odd statement. Affordability wasnt an issue because of catastrophic insurance? Are you claiming catastropic insurance was unlimited? Are you claiming it was free?
QuoteYou are lumping in basic treatment and services with treatment for diseases which would be covered.
No, I am pointing out the limitations of the affordability of both in the old system.
Quote from: Gaunt on February 19, 2014, 01:09:50 PM
We are arguing at cross purposes. When I said 60 years ago you just died from cancer, its because there was no treatment for cancer. Insurance or no.
Now there is treatment, incredibly expensive treatment, with costs that never existed back in the day.
The disease is irrelevant. The point is anything that would be costly to the point of financial hardship would be covered whether cancer or Smallpox or the plague or being hit by a bus. if it could bankrupt you it was covered.
QuoteIrrelevant. Yes, it does, but that has nothing to do with the issue. The free market would not reduce the price of modern expensive medical treatments and diagnostics to the point where they would be middle class affordable, they are just too expensive by their very nature.
1) Competition and demand lowers costs if no one could afford the service the service the price would have to be reduced.
2) Once again it would have been covered.
QuoteWhat an odd statement. Affordability wasnt an issue because of catastrophic insurance? Are you claiming catastropic insurance was unlimited? Are you claiming it was free?
Jesus Christ.
You paid a small premium and if you had a major accident or were diagnosed with a disease the insurance policy covered it.
QuoteNo, I am pointing out the limitations of the affordability of both in the old system.
No you are not because you don't know the difference between a check-up and chemo therapy. You don't understand competition and you can't seem to grasp the purpose of catastrophic insurance.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 19, 2014, 01:19:30 PM
The disease is irrelevant. The point is anything that would be costly to the point of financial hardship would be covered whether cancer or Smallpox or the plague or being hit by a bus. if it could bankrupt you it was covered.
1) Competition and demand lowers costs if no one could afford the service the service the price would have to be reduced.
2) Once again it would have been covered.
Jesus Christ.
You paid a small premium and if you had a major accident or were diagnosed with a disease the insurance policy covered it.
No you are not because you don't know the difference between a check-up and chemo therapy. You don't understand competition and you can't seem to grasp the purpose of catastrophic insurance.
So far, the free market doesn't drive costs down, technology doesn't get cheaper, and innovation increases costs?
Quote from: taxed on February 19, 2014, 01:21:08 PM
So far, the free market doesn't drive costs down, technology doesn't get cheaper, and innovation increases costs?
That must be why cancer survival rates haven't increased...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on February 19, 2014, 01:23:14 PM
That must be why cancer survival rates haven't increased...
It's sad how freedom and free markets scare the hell out of these people.