BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion
 
Steve Thomas BMW
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      02-26-2014, 12:04 PM   #23
128Convertibleguy
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

Posts: 440
iTrader: (0)

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
Costs of the policies don't vary with income levels - what varies is the level of government subsidies.

I again disagree with your assumption that "the very best health systems in the world" are socialized medicine systems - they generally suck.
The costs to the individual are less. Potato, potahto.

It's not an assumption for countries with national health care INSURANCE systems. By just about every quantitative measure available (life expectancy, infant mortality, doctors per 1000 people, etc.) they do better than us.

You're correct that socialized MEDICINE systems, like Canada and England, don't work all that well. Their stats are just as lousy as ours. They do spend a lot less money to get there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
Example is antibiotics - we haven't had any new antibiotics in development for many years, which is why we are now seeing drug-resistant pneumonia, TB, gonorrhea, MRSA, C-Diff, and many others - because the "evil" profit motive was removed.
No, it's because bacteria became drug resistant, and the pharmaceutical companies haven't solved the problem yet. Do you seriously believe they haven't been trying? The first company that gets there will win big.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
The drug companies do make huge profits. I'm fine with that, if they innovate for the good of all of us. The Trial Attorneys also make huge profits, by suing the drug companies in ridiculous class-action suits (watch daytime TV ads from trial attorneys). The Trial Attorneys are the #1 contributors to Obama and the Democrats - which is why Tort Reform wasn't addressed in Obamacare. So you now pay their fees in your healthcare costs. Like that much?
Political opposition, such as yours, to Obamacare, resulted in compromises needed to pass the legislation. As I stated above, I'm very much not happy with that. But I accept it. It is something not limited to Obamacare, it's a basic feature of our democracy.

If we could just have accepted the fact that the rest of the world has developed systems far superior to our obsolete employment based private insurance, and gone from there, we could have achieved great things. Just by agreeing on the basics which have been proven to work. Instead objections based on political philosophy had to be dealt with.

The systems in the Netherlands, France, and Germany, would have been good to look at. They are pretty much the countries with the best health care systems in the world, when you consider ALL their citizens well being, regardless of economic status, religious beliefs, etc.. I'm sure people can find something to quibble about with each of their systems, but for their countries as a whole, considering medical issues ONLY, not religion or politics, they're the true champs. Better results than ours at dramatically lower cost to the economy. One thing that has not come up here is just how our old system saddles us with a competitive disadvantage in the world economy. Both in terms of money and loss of productivity.

Obamacare will improve that, but not nearly as much as it could have.

Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 02-26-2014 at 01:34 PM.
128Convertibleguy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-26-2014, 04:43 PM   #24
bbbbmw
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

Posts: 512
iTrader: (0)

And again... There is no verifiable measure to back up your assertion that other countries have a superior health system. The statistics are severely skewed, in the way they capture data. The new ICD-10 coding system will make it even worse. When you adjust for it, ours is far superior.

No legislator even read the Obamacare legislation before it was passed - did you forget Nancy Pelosi "we have to pass the legislation to know what's in it?" The democrat congress passed a 2,000+ page bill in less than 24 hours - it was physically impossible for anyone to understand it.

You assert that it was a "compromise" it was absolutely NOT a compromise: the Democrats created it behind locked doors, without a single a Republican in the room. The Democrats own this failure - plain and simple - there was absolutely no negotiation.
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
bbbbmw is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-26-2014, 07:12 PM   #25
128Convertibleguy
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

Posts: 440
iTrader: (0)

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
You assert that it was a "compromise" it was absolutely NOT a compromise: the Democrats created it behind locked doors, without a single a Republican in the room. The Democrats own this failure - plain and simple - there was absolutely no negotiation.
The compromises I was referring to were things like no tort reform. Needed to get adequate support since the Republicans chose not to participate.

If the Republicans had played, we'd have a better bill. They chose not to. For some, any national healthcare insurance plan was unacceptable. But mostly, it was because they did not want Obama to have this historic success before the 2012 election, something many of them stated openly, which boggles my mind. "To heck with the country, all we're concerned about is the election". The strategy didn't work anyway, and we're stuck with a compromised bill.

The Republicans own that. They could have had tort reform, easily. We could have had a better bill, in many ways. It's still head and shoulders above what we had, with employer based private insurance.

And the Republicans also own their incredible stubbornness about repeatedly trying (and failing) to block insurance for millions of people who had none, were desperately afraid, and now will have insurance. Other people now have the freedom to leave a job they hated, but kept for the medical coverage for their family. Americans aren't stupid, I doubt many of those millions previously uninsured or trapped will vote Republican.

Can you provide a detailed explanation showing how data like life expectancy is flawed? Doctors per 1000 people?

Or explain in detail how ICD-10, which is simply a widely agreed to International standard system of classifying disease, as was ICD-9, disadvantages the US? Especially with regard to the broad measures of healthcare effectiveness. I see it as an example of how the advanced democracies have been working together for years, to make sure data is comparable across national borders.

As discussed above, the data is often slanted to favor the US, as with "five year life expectancy". But, all in all, it's something of a wash. Comparisons are readily possible, especially for broad measures of healthcare effectiveness. Pretty much everything that can be quantitatively measured generally favors countries with national health care insurance. As do cost comparisons, where the difference is large, with the US on the short end of the stick.

Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 02-26-2014 at 07:44 PM.
128Convertibleguy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-26-2014, 09:20 PM   #26
bbbbmw
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

Posts: 512
iTrader: (0)

Republicans were PREVENTED from participation in creation of the bill. Many suggested Tort reform, which the Dems wouldn't consider (see previous comment about trial attorneys lobbying democrats and Obama).

ICD-10 is not an international standard - there are many versions in many countries. Canada, for example, has their version with about 11k codes. The US has appox 168k codes: our coding is 10x as detailed as the rest of the world. Therefore, comparisons will continue to be spin against our healthcare system.

There were a few problems that needed fixing, such as people with pre-existing conditions that could not transfer to a new policy. But now anyone can simply not buy insurance until they get sick - kind of like driving your BMW til you wreck it, and then buying the insurance. But screwing it up for everyone wasn't the solution for the less-than-5% that had a problem. And if you hadn't kept track, almost no one is choosing to buy Obamacare insurance.

You are repeating the "new" Democrat spin for this failure.
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
bbbbmw is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-26-2014, 09:55 PM   #27
Mr Tonka
Tonka.... Mr. Tonka
 
Drives: Exceptionally well :)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Tampa, FL

Posts: 1,160
iTrader: (0)

My father's road trip buddy is the administrator for group of 7 large hospitals, three of them being regional trauma centers. He is also an Obama supporter and was for this new legislation. After some time and many many weeks of learning how the new system is going to be administered, he as come to the conclusion that the very people this system was meant to help, those who couldn't afford insurance, will in fact be the ones hurt the most by it.

I am all for tort reform but this is a pipe dream here in an America where the political machine is run by current and former attorneys. There is no tighter fraternity of professionals in this country than attorneys. And those former attorneys aren't going to create new legislation that will directly affect their brother's income.
__________________
-Joe


"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." — Frédéric Bastiat
Mr Tonka is offline   United_States
0
Reply With Quote
      02-26-2014, 11:58 PM   #28
bbbbmw
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

Posts: 512
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Tonka View Post
My father's road trip buddy is the administrator for group of 7 large hospitals, three of them being regional trauma centers. He is also an Obama supporter and was for this new legislation. After some time and many many weeks of learning how the new system is going to be administered, he as come to the conclusion that the very people this system was meant to help, those who couldn't afford insurance, will in fact be the ones hurt the most by it.

I am all for tort reform but this is a pipe dream here in an America where the political machine is run by current and former attorneys. There is no tighter fraternity of professionals in this country than attorneys. And those former attorneys aren't going to create new legislation that will directly affect their brother's income.
Being forced to provide healthcare to everyone, including those who are uninsured, many providers thought they would see additional revenues by having Obamacare passed. However (and because no one read it before it was passed), they missed the larger picture, where they are receiving reduced payments from the government insurance programs such as Medicare. And, new immigrants are not eligible for Obamacare for 13 years, so if the Immigration Bill passes, we will have an entire new population that is uninsured (12-20 million, by estimates). So I understand the Administrator's conclusion.

Unrelated, but since this thread started with Milton Friedman, I came across this quote - hilarious:

"Economist Milton Friedman was testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in favor of a national constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. Kennedy argued that a requirement for a balanced budget would restrict the federal government’s power and its ability to spend – thus, he said, Washington’s role in more fairly and equitably distributing wealth, goods and services.

“Senator, socialism hasn’t worked in 6,000 years of recorded history,” explained Friedman. “Why won’t you give up on it?”

Kennedy rose to his feet, according to Nuttle, who attended the hearing, and replied: “It hasn’t worked in 6,000 years of recorded history because it didn’t have me to run it.”
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
bbbbmw is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-27-2014, 12:55 PM   #29
128Convertibleguy
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

Posts: 440
iTrader: (0)

Smile

A few factual corrections and I'm done here. This is getting repetitive. Carry on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
Republicans were PREVENTED from participation in creation of the bill.
Republicans were not prevented from participating. They were invited to meetings, they could offer proposals. They chose to present a unanimous NO. Even at the end, they could easily have gotten tort reform simply by trading some YES votes for the bill. Twenty probably would have done the job. This is how our democracy works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
And, new immigrants are not eligible for Obamacare for 13 years, so if the Immigration Bill passes, we will have an entire new population that is uninsured (12-20 million, by estimates).
Only those who are not citizens. National health care insurance is for citizens only in most places. I can imagine the conservative outcry if that was not the case. Actually I don't have to, they have already screamed that illegal immigrants will participate, in spite of safeguards in the bill to prevent that.



Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
And if you hadn't kept track, almost no one is choosing to buy Obamacare insurance.
You're clearly intelligent, and you've fought fairly, with no personal insults. The worst thing about this discussion is your constant introduction of things stated as facts, which are simply not true. I don't think you make them up, I think your sources, based on some of your references, are wildly inaccurate far right wing "spin". You are, as they say, "in the bubble", and could broaden your sight. At the very least, you'd avoid being called on some of this stuff. There is no better example than this.

"almost no one" is ridiculous. So far, about four million people have signed up. They'll probably have five million, maybe a little more, at the end of March. They had hoped for seven million at that time. Given the difficulty of estimating, and the initial website problems, they'll actually be quite close to last year's target.

To say four million people is "almost no one" is absurd. It's reasonably in line with estimates created before enrollment started. Some of your other "facts" have been equally as bad.

Cheers.

Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 02-27-2014 at 01:03 PM.
128Convertibleguy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-27-2014, 03:10 PM   #30
bbbbmw
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

Posts: 512
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy
A few factual corrections and I'm done here. This is getting repetitive. Carry on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
Republicans were PREVENTED from participation in creation of the bill.
Republicans were not prevented from participating. They were invited to meetings, they could offer proposals. They chose to present a unanimous NO. Even at the end, they could easily have gotten tort reform simply by trading some YES votes for the bill. Twenty probably would have done the job. This is how our democracy works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
And, new immigrants are not eligible for Obamacare for 13 years, so if the Immigration Bill passes, we will have an entire new population that is uninsured (12-20 million, by estimates).
Only those who are not citizens. National health care insurance is for citizens only in most places. I can imagine the conservative outcry if that was not the case. Actually I don't have to, they have already screamed that illegal immigrants will participate, in spite of safeguards in the bill to prevent that.



Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
And if you hadn't kept track, almost no one is choosing to buy Obamacare insurance.
You're clearly intelligent, and you've fought fairly, with no personal insults. The worst thing about this discussion is your constant introduction of things stated as facts, which are simply not true. I don't think you make them up, I think your sources, based on some of your references, are wildly inaccurate far right wing "spin". You are, as they say, "in the bubble", and could broaden your sight. At the very least, you'd avoid being called on some of this stuff. There is no better example than this.

"almost no one" is ridiculous. So far, about four million people have signed up. They'll probably have five million, maybe a little more, at the end of March. They had hoped for seven million at that time. Given the difficulty of estimating, and the initial website problems, they'll actually be quite close to last year's target.

To say four million people is "almost no one" is absurd. It's reasonably in line with estimates created before enrollment started. Some of your other "facts" have been equally as bad.

Cheers.
The core group of Dems that wrote the bill shut Repubs out of it's creation. They didn't need the votes, as they had a super-majority, and knew it was veto-proof. There was no give-take at all. Even the rank/file of Dems hadn't seen the Bill - hence Pelosi's comment about "we have to pass it to see what's in it." She wouldn't have said that if it had been negotiated. Not sure where you got the info about "probably twenty."

It's part of the Immigration Bill, and the Pathway to Citizenship - called Resident Provisional Immigrant status. It creates an incentive for businesses to hire the arapaima,s, because of the requirements of Obamacare.

The 4 million signups you mentioned (which is about 1.3% of our US population of 310M+), is estimated to be 65-89% people who were previously insured, and mostly on Government Medicaid programs. About 11% is estimated to be people who were previously uninsured, which is approximately .13% of the US population. So for the sake of 1/10th of 1 percent, we did this? (My source on this is Forbes and others on the net).
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>

Last edited by bbbbmw; 02-27-2014 at 03:31 PM.
bbbbmw is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-27-2014, 06:56 PM   #31
128Convertibleguy
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

Posts: 440
iTrader: (0)

Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
The 4 million signups you mentioned (which is about 1.3% of our US population of 310M+), is estimated to be 65-89% people who were previously insured, and mostly on Government Medicaid programs.
Just when I thought I was out - another howler. "Mostly on Medicaid"?

The four million is only people who signed up for private health insurance through the marketplace. There can't be very many of those, if any, who are eligible for Medicaid. Who could or would pay for insurance if they had the extremely low income needed to qualify for Medicaid in most states? It's free. An ADDITIONAL 6 million who inquired were deemed eligible for Medicaid and, as required by the law, directed there. Note too that the Medicaid expansion available in States with a non-idiot governor, means that, under Obamacare, significantly more people are getting covered under Medicaid, also.

""Enrollment in the Health Insurance Marketplace continues to accelerate every month, and almost 3.3 million people have now enrolled in private coverage since the marketplace opened, in addition to the more than 6 million who have gotten covered through Medicaid," she said in a statement."

http://consumer.healthday.com/public...on-684853.html

That was as of early February. It's up to 4 milion now.

You can say you think Obamacare is no good. You cannot say that the number of people choosing it or getting covered through its new provisions is insignificant. It just ain't so.

And now I'm truly finished. People reading this thread have been adequately warned about the misleading information you've posted, and continue to post. Me, I'm going to ignore it from now on.

You really could check this stuff out easily. I knew it was wrong and it took me all of 5 minutes to get a clearly stated reference from a non-political source.

Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 02-27-2014 at 07:12 PM.
128Convertibleguy is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-27-2014, 07:52 PM   #32
bbbbmw
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

Posts: 512
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 128Convertibleguy
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
The 4 million signups you mentioned (which is about 1.3% of our US population of 310M+), is estimated to be 65-89% people who were previously insured, and mostly on Government Medicaid programs.
Just when I thought I was out - another howler. "Mostly on Medicaid"?

The four million is only people who signed up for private health insurance through the marketplace. There can't be very many of those, if any, who are eligible for Medicaid. Who could or would pay for insurance if they had the extremely low income needed to qualify for Medicaid in most states? It's free. An ADDITIONAL 6 million who inquired were deemed eligible for Medicaid and, as required by the law, directed there. Note too that the Medicaid expansion available in States with a non-idiot governor, means that, under Obamacare, significantly more people are getting covered under Medicaid, also.

""Enrollment in the Health Insurance Marketplace continues to accelerate every month, and almost 3.3 million people have now enrolled in private coverage since the marketplace opened, in addition to the more than 6 million who have gotten covered through Medicaid," she said in a statement."

http://consumer.healthday.com/public...on-684853.html

That was as of early February. It's up to 4 milion now.

You can say you think Obamacare is no good. You cannot say that the number of people choosing it or getting covered through its new provisions is insignificant. It just ain't so.

And now I'm truly finished. People reading this thread have been adequately warned about the misleading information you've posted, and continue to post. Me, I'm going to ignore it from now on.

You really could check this stuff out easily. I knew it was wrong and it took me all of 5 minutes to get a clearly stated reference from a non-political source.
Did you read the article? It quotes the government appointee Kathleen Sebelius, and the President of "Enroll America" - those aren't unbiased?

Here's another quote:

"Some 3.2 million people have been deemed eligible for Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). This number reflects only those who entered through the marketplaces. It does not include people who applied for coverage through state Medicaid or CHIP agencies."

Think about that in context of your post - both the numbers, and that people who are eligible for Medicaid are enrolling via the exchanges.
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
bbbbmw is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-28-2014, 12:44 AM   #33
bbbbmw
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

Posts: 512
iTrader: (0)

[/QUOTE=128Convertibleguy]Maternity and substance abuse care are indeed included in all policies. Gender reassignment is not. I can see how you might disagree with that, although I don't. [/quote]


Speaking of gender re-assignment, it will soon be required in DC health plans:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...gnment-surger/
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>

Last edited by bbbbmw; 02-28-2014 at 07:30 AM.
bbbbmw is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-05-2014, 03:43 PM   #34
bbbbmw
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

Posts: 512
iTrader: (0)

Just a footnote on this thread (in case anyone is still reading...) - the Obamacare law required insurance companies to stop selling plans that didn't meet the minimum standards of Obamacare. When so many people were dropped and rates hiked, the Administration issued a 1 year delay in the requirement. But - that meant that cancellation notices would go out just before the mid-term elections. So? The Administration is rumored to be suspending the requirement indefinitly...

If you like your plan, you can keep your plan - at least until after you vote this fall.
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
bbbbmw is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      03-14-2014, 08:56 AM   #35
bbbbmw
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

Posts: 512
iTrader: (0)

This just in - If your individual plan was cancelled because it didn't meet the requirements of Obamacare, and the new plans are more expensive than what you were paying, you can simply claim a "hardship", and you won't have to buy a new plan at all, nor pay any fine. This provision of Obamacare has been extended to everyone, and until 2016, thereby delaying the Individual Mandate:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...35491992924828
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
bbbbmw is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:11 AM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST