by health insurance companies who hang onto rather more of the money paid in than most, then have to pay the costs the world's most expensive health care system, with a depressing tendency to over-test (to protect the doctor s if they get sued for malpractice by a huge clan of ambulance-chasing lawy ers) and to over-treat (because they make money out of anything they do, ev en if it is of marginal advantage to the patient). "
Hows come everybody in the world knows about all this except the sheeple pa ying for it ?
You would've seen it if you'd merely read what its first implementor for the administration had to say about it. It wasn't hard--he even had a pretty picture.
Ah, a lecture, from someone too lazy to click a link that directly rebuts one of his beliefs, from one of the experts directly involved?
Obamacare is the world's most expensive insurance because it adds layers and layers of bureaucracy, middlemen, and requirements onto what was previously the world's most expensive insurance.
That's Obamacare's triumph--the Affordable Care Act makes care less affordable.
We could make it all cost a lot less by getting the government out of it-- they're the ones who messed it up--but that would put politicians out of business (of running people's lives).
You said Obamacare copied Romneycare, which had been "working" in Massachusetts for years.
By which you meant Obamacare was mostly the same, when it isn't, and also that the MA model has been working, when it hasn't. (Exploding the world's highest costs) ("affordable care").
re both rather small steps towards the "national insurance" schemes that do work well in France and German, and deliver rather cheaper, but perfectly adequate health care in the UK. That Obamacare and Romneycare work at all, granting the defects of the rapacious, over-staffed, and under-regulated he alth insurance companies on which they are based, is a trifle surprising.
The "rapacious" insurance companies make about 3% profit. The Obamacare website ALONE charges 3.5%, just for using their useless website.
nah!" to wise DML for giving us this precious perfect gift?
for years in Massachusetts, Obamacare isn't the only author of this "precio us perfect gift".
bout
a
y
was all I was saying. I didn't suggest that it was identical, which seems to be the strawman argument your irrelevant comments would have demolished if I'd made it.
he falsehood that Obamacare == Romneycare.
ks in one state is obviously not going to work across multiple states. As u sual, you are distorting what I said so that you can create another of your strawman arguments.
It is, when it's done by a Xerox machine. "Copy" is one of many words whose precise meaning changes with context, and a schoolkid copying another kid' s work doesn't have to precisely duplicate it to be guilty of plagarism.
he
s gone down by 20%, 30%, or 40% in real terms since 2000 except health care , which has gone up by 60%. In 2013, 43% of state expenditures are for he alth care - that's more than double what we spend on education."
government
re system.
iness.
d imply in the context where I used the word.
ts, now you say it's a "step in the [right] direction."
I might have seen it, but I'm not obliged to believe it.
t of the advanced industrial world, and it's a trifle unrealistic (even tho ugh it suits your preconceptions) to blame all the increase in the Massachu setts costs on Romneycare.
The expert just says that health care in Massachusetts has got more expensi ve. He doesn't actually blame this on Romneycare. The claim seems to be "Th e current health care payment system pays most hospitals and doctors for vo lume (how much they do) rather than for results (how well patients do). And , it is not sufficiently focused on the upstream prevention of disease."
This is true of the American health care system as a whole - as it has been for many years, since long before Romneycare and Obamacare - and isn't spe cific to either Obamacare or Romneycare.
It's no different from what I said. The laziness is all yours - you've assu med that someone who thinks that American health care is too expensive is a gainst Romneycare and Obamacare when in fact Berwick makes it clear that th e problem lies in the system that both pay for.
As usual, what you've "got" is what you wanted to see. The fact that your e vidence doesn't support your claim is equally typical - you are brainwashed to the point where you can't think straight, which leads you to criticise others for not making the same idiotic assumptions that you have.
It's the healthcare system that it's paying for that's expensive, rather th an the health insurance system that lets more of the population take advant age of it's over-priced services. The system works - the hospitals and doct ors do get paid - even if they get paid more than you want paid out.
are both rather small steps towards the "national insurance" schemes that do work well in France and German, and deliver rather cheaper, but perfectl y adequate health care in the UK. That Obamacare and Romneycare work at all , granting the defects of the rapacious, over-staffed, and under-regulated health insurance companies on which they are based, is a trifle surprising.
But have remarkably high administrative costs. Compare the transaction cost s of US health insurance schemes with those of the rest of the world. I've posted URLs showing comparisons before, so I won't bother doing it again. T he US insurance companies do cream off quite a bit more of the customer's p remiums that the French, German and Dutch equivalents.
bsite.
3.5% of what? And what does it cover?
First get into a situation where the government can regulate the health ins urance industry, then move the system to one that looks a lot more like the French, German and Dutch systems, which end up charging about two-thirds o f the price per head, to provide the same level of health care for everybod y that the US system only offers to the fully insured.
No, it's expensive primarily because the cost of the health care it deliver s is about half again higher than the cost of the same level of health care provided in other countries - France and Germany are the obvious examples.
The US medical insurance system does have high administrative costs, and Ob ama had to bribe them to get the Obamacare legislation passed in the first place, but it's the whole US system that's expensive, not just Obamacare
It's primary aim was to make care available to more people, not to make it cheaper. the US is unique amongst advanced industrial countries in not havi ng universal health care. About 85% of the population were insured for heal th care before Obamacare was introduced, and the hope was that Obamacare wo uld push this up to 95%.
formatting link
I've yet to see any reliable evidence that it's actually made a difference yet. Romneycare seems to have worked in Massachusetts - the percentage uninsured there dropped from 9.6% in 2006 to 4.9% in 2007.
-
That's a theory - in fact a particularly stupid right-wing nitwit theory.
The other advanced industrial countries all have more government regulation and lower health care costs per head. France and Germany seem to have a co mparable level of health care and pay two thirds as much per head to cover everybody at the level the US can only offer to the 85% who are fully insur ed.
The consumers of health care aren't the rational, well-informed participant s in the free market that James Arthur likes to imagine, and the health car e system has more in common with the defense system that James Arthur seems to be conscious of - it's primary justification is to prevent and contain outbreaks of infectious disease, even if they have been relatively rare in recent years, as have military invasions.
The greatest advantage of universal health is that it's there for everybody when a plague breaks out.
This means that letting it be shaped by the free market to cope with day-to
-day problems isn't a good idea, no matter how much this may appeal to the half-wits of the Tea Party.
Yes, many people have that reaction to lef.org - that they sell expensive vitamins. I encourage you to ignore that aspect, and concentrate on their research. In passing, somehow people get the idea that medical care must be non-economic. Few doctors know what their treatments cost, or they don't care.
You actually don't have to eat well to benefit from from supplements. It's not good to be obese, and this may require corrective dieting, but fighting directly the causes of disease and aging really pays off. If you can discipline yourself to live on whole grains and vegetables, great. But a few supplements can make up for a host of sins. And about carcinogens in the diet. They are not important. Over-cooked food (meat, fries) is a much worse poison.
Here are the body dysfunctions that cause disease and aging, and a few cures. (Note: Some supplements can 'roll back' damage, ie, reverse alzheimers, atherosclerosis, etc.)
A. Body inflammation - CRP blood test - anti-oxidants (curcumin, green tea, OPC'a, aspirin, lipoic acid, etc.) Result: cut risk of cancer by 80%.
B. Body Glycation - Hb1Ac blood test - benfotiamine (vitamin B1 prevents this, gamma E, control of blood sugar) - major disease and aging effects
C. Deterioration of Body Mitochondia - At age 55, 95% of mitos are damaged. - loss of energy - PQQ promotes new mitos, exercise - This is the mito theory of aging and concerns gradual loss of function w/aging
D. Others - Mind-Brain, Heart, arthritis, Pain, atherosclerois, cancer, dementia eyesight, etc. These are mostly due to defects in A,B,C above.
Forget DNA research, this is the area that is revolutionizing preventive medicine now. Supplements have turned into a 150b industry, and Big Pharma is publishing papers in med journals to discredit it. They are frantic to stop it, because it works and their stuff doesn't.
For example, Pomegranate juice actually cleans out atherosclerosis from arteries, reverses hardening of arteries, causes "plaque regression." (different terms for same thing.) If Big Pharma had a drug that good, they would imagine they had died and gone to Heaven.
Doctors are fire-men who focus on putting out fires after they start. But a MUCH better approach to disease is prevent it in the first place. (duh) What would you think of your car mechanic if he said, "Let's not change the oil. We'll just let the engine seize up and then repair it later." ?
That's all. Read and study lef.org. And when you go to the doctor, look around you in the waiting room. You will probably see over-weight people, depressed and in pain, hoping the doctor will fix them up. Don't be one of them.
Standard fabrication--that's what makes talking to you so difficult. First Goggle "Big Lie," then watch this video of Dear MisLeader speaking on your "point":
formatting link
Then explain again how the "AFFFFFOOOORRRRRRDDDDDABLE Care Act" wasn't claimed to reduce cost.
It makes medical insurance affordable for people who couldn't afford it bef ore.
It doesn't make any significant difference to the cost of the health care b eing paid for, though if it does serve as the thin end of the wedge to get more government regulation of the particularly wasteful US health insurance business, and ultimately the particularly extravagant US health care syste m, it may be of some help eventually.
After all, every other advanced industrial country, and a few that are rath er less advanced does health insurance and health care more cheaply - and m ore cost-effectively - than the US, despite greater government regulation. Perhaps you need to sub-contract the business to some other government - th ey can obviously do that particular job better than you can. Revising your constitution might help too.
If you think that Obama was selling the Affordable Care Act as an overall c ost-saving exercise, you've got to be even sillier than I thought, which is to say, very silly indeed.
Clearly one of the unique non-selling points of the US constitution. Govern ments in other advanced industrial countries regulate the medical insurance and health care services more closely than the US does, and some of them p rovide health care of much the same quality for everybody at about two thir ds of the price per head. All of them provide cheaper health care that work s better averaged over the population as a whole, but the UK National Healt h Service is a bit Spartan.
You need a new constitution so you can have a government who can intervene without ruining anybody's life (or at lest the lives of those who aren't ve ry well-off).
Oh, that's simply an absurd lie. It's not true, and it's also not what they said.
Look up Pelosi and other Democrats, constantly spewing their magic focus-tested words "affordable" and "quality," when all they've done is wrap the system in four extra layers of bureaucrats.
I just posted a montage of President Obama telling *ordinary people* over and over that they could keep their plans if they liked them, and the only change THEY would see would be lower premiums, of / up to $2,500 a year.
First Goggle "Big Lie," then watch this video of Dear MisLeader speaking o n your "point":
t claimed to reduce cost.
before.
they said.
On the contrary, expanding the number of people covered by medical insuranc e was always what Obamacare was primarily aimed at. Any other result is inc idental. One of them - the limiting of the powers of the medical insurance companies to cherry-pick their clients - is an independent advance. I'm sur e there were other independent consequences.
tested words "affordable" and "quality," when all they've done is wrap the system in four extra layers of bureaucrats.
"Four extra layers of bureaucrats"? I'm sure that's a misunderstanding on y our part, but no doubt you will have some justification for the number "fou r".
I'm certainly not going to read everything that Pelosi and the other Democr ats have said on the subject. It's bound to include dubious claims that Oba macare is the best thing since sliced bread, and your decidedly prejudiced eye will interpret some of them in a way that fits your political preconcep tions. Working out what you've got in mind isn't actually worth the trouble - it can be distilled down to "Republicans good, Democrats bad" without lo sing any information of any importance.
r and over that they could keep their plans if they liked them, and the on ly change THEY would see would be lower premiums, of / up to / $2,500 a yea r.
It's always unwise to predict - in detail - how legislation is going to wor k out until the bureaucrats have worked out the details. He should have rea lised that many pre-existing medical insurance policies had exclusions that made them unacceptable under the Obamacare legislation - but the medical i nsurance business may have lied to him about that.
Claiming that the primary aim of Obamacare was to raise the proportion of A mericans covered by medical insurance from 85% to something closer to 95% ( which the level of coverage Romneycare achieved in Massachasetts) isn't any kind of lie. The fact that you think that you can claim that it is puts yo u into krw territory - you are acting as if the mere fact that you don't wa nt to believe it makes it a lie.
You are letting your partisan emotions turn you posts into bad jokes.
If you honestly believe that Obomacare had anything to do with helping the population against insurance companies, You have a screw looser than I thought and it's getting ready to fall out.
Don't worry, there's a place for you, Oboma's gang loves blind people. Who knows, maybe he'll come to your area and turn your place upside down. I hope so, it'd be a lesson to you for being so damn block headed.
Are you sure you're not part of some communist party trying to destroy people's hope? Do you hang here promoted this crap for some one you don't care to speak of, to drive the agenda that no one wants? Is there something in it for you? I'd be real curious because the way I see, you can not be numb headed as you present yourself here, supporting government movements that do nothing but take away from people.
I am beginning to think that you maybe part of a larger campaign the way you consistently belittle the majority's belief of how this country was built and it sure didn't include your kind with your whacked out ideas, if that is what they are, or are they instructions?
Yep, the most inexpensive Obamacare policy, almost as good as what I have is $1,150 per month. My great policy is $646 even after the last three increases totaling, 71.6% in 25 months. Most of it caused by Obamacare policies. Mikek
--
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
James Arthur has a strange idea of fun. Recycling the more moronic features of Tea Party propaganda is no occupation for a grown man. It may make you popular in Tea Party circles, but even James Arthur should be able to do better than that.
of Americans covered by medical insurance from 85% to something closer to 9
5% (which the level of coverage Romneycare achieved in Massachasetts) isn't any kind of lie. The fact that you think that you can claim that it is put s you into krw territory - you are acting as if the mere fact that you don' t want to believe it makes it a lie.
he population against insurance companies, You have a screw looser than I thought and it's getting ready to fall out.
Since that isn't what I'm arguing, the loose screw is in your sentence comp rehension.
Obamacare has incidentally cleaned out a few medical insurance scams that l et the medical insurance cherry-pick their customers to some extent, but t he medical insurance companies lobbied long and hard to get compensation fo r any loss this might have caused them.
My argument is that Obamacare is primarily aimed at getting US medical insu rance cover up from the current 85% to something closer to the 95% that Rom neycare achieved in Massachusetts a few years ago.
Whereas the the Tea Party loves the brainwashed and the gullible, of whom y ou are a depressingly representative example.
You must be thinking of George W Bush and Irak. Americans can be remarkably stupid, but you aren't going to make that mistake again any time soon, and in any event Australia hasn't got enough oil to make it a likely target.
It's a little comical to be called block-headed by someone who is supportin g a system that charges half as much again more per head for medical care t han the most extravagant of the other advanced industrial countries, and de livers 37th place on the international health care league table.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.