Why Didn’t Obama Wreck the Economy When He Had the Chance?

[foxpaws]

Translation; Nuh-uh! Because my guy said so!

You should be happy to know that the AMA opposes Obamacare.

If you've drank the Kool Aid, there's no reasoning with you.

Yes I do know that the AMA is against Obamacare (well, the government sponsored insurance part...) - that is why I am even more convinced that what the AMA says regarding death/health insurance is probably pretty accurate.

 

[foxpaws]

It's doubly funny you would use breast cancer as an example considering the Obama Administration's task force determined that women should STOP getting preventive checkups...

You should really consider the COST of mammograms in the context of Obamacare and ask yourself WHY Obama's bunch came to this absurd conclusion.

It is just the rate and the age you should start getting mammograms that has changed Foss - not that you should stop.

As with all things, over time things change, after something that has been in place, and you have a chance to check data. Now that we have had mammograms for a couple of decades, scientists can see if having a mammogram every 3 years after age 40, and every year after 55 (or whatever it is, I don't remember) results in better statistics by reducing mammograms to start at age 50 and only doing them every 3 years after that.

They found that the results for women without a family history of breast cancer don't change markedly by reducing mammograms, or altering the time that you begin.

These new recommendations have been in place in Europe for a while, with no increase in rates...

And I still ask the same question of both you and Shag...

If you truly believe that lack of healthcare insurance wouldn't affect your chances on living a long, healthy life, why have it - you will be just as healthy, your quality of life will not change, and the age you live to will not alter because you don't have it.

 

[shagdrum]

But without health insurance - quality health care, especially preventive care, is well out of the reach of many Americans.

Why? Why are costs so high?

When businesses provide health coverage, people lose a sense of the true cost of health care and prices are inflated do to a severely muted feedback mechanism in the market. That factor started the ball rolling...

The cost effect - true - look at lasik - not covered by health insurance, and the costs have gone down. But, insurance companies, to attract more customers and to drive down overall costs, started to add more and more benefits to their plans - including preventative care...

Mandates by various states have been a major factor (if not the primary factor).

The "attract more customers" explanation alone doesn't make market sense. If it were purely market forces at play, most people would only have catastrophic coverage.

They knew that preventative care leads to less expense to the plan eventually, because catching something early is cheaper than dealing with the expensive of a massive health problem down the road.

That is a lot of speculation.

In fact, empirical evidence on preventative care leading to less expense is...inconclusive.

I have always wondered why insurers, and their preventative care policies haven't driven down costs, instead of increased costs. You have a massive buying group - like Blue Cross/Blue Shield, who is buying millions of mammograms. Why don't they negotiate better deals? The cost to the insurance company is more expensive then I can find on my own.

There are a number of factors...

 

[fossten]

It is just the rate and the age you should start getting mammograms that has changed Foss - not that you should stop.

As with all things, over time things change, after something that has been in place, and you have a chance to check data. Now that we have had mammograms for a couple of decades, scientists can see if having a mammogram every 3 years after age 40, and every year after 55 (or whatever it is, I don't remember) results in better statistics by reducing mammograms to start at age 50 and only doing them every 3 years after that.

They found that the results for women without a family history of breast cancer don't change markedly by reducing mammograms, or altering the time that you begin.

These new recommendations have been in place in Europe for a while, with no increase in rates...

So, you're defending this position?

REALLY?

Even after the American Cancer Society came out against it?

REALLY?

And after the task force came out and backed off their findings?

REALLY?

Try and keep up, you're not doing so well today.

And I still ask the same question of both you and Shag...

If you truly believe that lack of healthcare insurance wouldn't affect your chances on living a long, healthy life, why have it - you will be just as healthy, your quality of life will not change, and the age you live to will not alter because you don't have it.

My health insurance is so cheap that it's almost not worth the effort to cancel it. But rest assured, if it was as expensive as Obama wants to make it, I wouldn't carry it. Furthermore, I don't equate 'insurance' with 'care' like you do, fox. The fact is that I don't waste my insurance running to the ER every time I have a sniffle.

Moreover, if you want to cheapen the cost of insurance, adopt the interstate commerce proposed by the Republicans, and enact tort reform which will reduce costs.

Obamacare will actually cause premiums to INCREASE.

So, fox, time for you to answer a question:

Do you even know WHY healthcare premiums are so high in so many cases? Or do you not even care?

 

[MonsterMark]

It's doubly funny you would use breast cancer as an example considering the Obama Administration's task force determined that women should STOP getting preventive checkups...

You should really consider the COST of mammograms in the context of Obamacare and ask yourself WHY Obama's bunch came to this absurd conclusion.

One GIGANTIC OWNED there.*owned*

And why is abortion in the bill? As a tool for population control ya think!
If you are pregnant and go see a doctor and already have a kid, they'll be forcing a government paid abortion on you.

OK, I know I'm ten years ahead of their plan. Should have kept that on the backburner.

BRING ON THE DEATH PANELS. ONLY PROGRESSIVES WILL BE DEEMED WORTHY TO LIVE A FULL LIFE.

 

[foxpaws]

So, you're defending this position?

REALLY?

<snip>

Try and keep up, you're not doing so well today.

No Foss, I am clarifying your bad post... you erroneously claimed...

It's doubly funny you would use breast cancer as an example considering the Obama Administration's task force determined that women should STOP getting preventive checkups..

They didn't say stop getting mammograms - based on the findings they want to alter frequency and onset... Not stop.

Did you lie Foss or were you just mistaken?

And shag - aren't you going to jump in and say that

In fact, empirical evidence on preventative care leading to less expense is...inconclusive.

Shouldn't you be at least standing up for fewer mammograms - well, in fact - how about none - they really don't 'prevent' anything, no 'empirical evidence' that would show that it saves money - right?

 

[Calabrio]

They didn't say stop getting mammograms - based on the findings they want to alter frequency and onset... Not stop.

If you are altering the onset, you are telling at least one group to STOP for a given amount of time. In this case, women between the ages of 40-50.

Did you lie Foss or were you just mistaken?

Neither. Are you lying or just engaged in double talk and think that makes it ok?

Shouldn't you be at least standing up for fewer mammograms -

Not necessarily.

 

[foxpaws]

Why? Why are costs so high?

When businesses provide health coverage, people lose a sense of the true cost of health care and prices are inflated do to a severely muted feedback mechanism in the market. That factor started the ball rolling...

As I mentioned before - cost isolation, I do believe that adds to the cost of health insurnace...

Mandates by various states have been a major factor (if not the primary factor).

But, I thought state level mandates are a good thing - isn't everything better when handled at the state level.

The "attract more customers" explanation alone doesn't make market sense. If it were purely market forces at play, most people would only have catastrophic coverage.

No-insurance companies market to businesses mostly - and businesses want to keep good employees, and attract good employees. They are the customers that the insurance companies 'attract'. One way is with good plans marketed to a business, then the business will have an excellent health insurance benefit as one way to keep and get good employees.

That is a lot of speculation.

In fact, empirical evidence on preventative care leading to less expense is...inconclusive.

Preventive care is often over prescribed or over used. But, common sense guidelines do result in cheaper overall health care cost. Preventive care to eliminate smoking, obesity, alcoholism, addiction all are well worth the cost.

Getting a check up once a year - common sense. Getting one 6 times a year - pretty useless.

High cost blood cancer screenings for the general population - may not be the best use of funds. Those same screens for high-risk people, very cost effective.

There are a number of factors...

So shag, what are those factors that cause a huge health insurance company who buys millions of mammograms a year to spend more money on each one of them then I, as a one-time buyer, do?

 

[fossten]

As I mentioned before - cost isolation, I do believe that adds to the cost of health insurnace...

Lay off the sauce, fox...

But, I thought state level mandates are a good thing - isn't everything better when handled at the state level.

Now that's what I call a weak straw man.

No-insurance companies market to businesses mostly - and businesses want to keep good employees, and attract good employees. They are the customers that the insurance companies 'attract'. One way is with good plans marketed to a business, then the business will have an excellent health insurance benefit as one way to keep and get good employees.

And when the Democrats control the insurance companies and force them to cover preexisting conditions, they'll go out of business. It's the same as requiring an insurance company to sell you fire insurance after your house burns down.

Preventive care is often over prescribed or over used. But, common sense guidelines do result in cheaper overall health care cost.

Not nearly as much as tort reform and interstate competiton. Do you know how much typical OB/GYN PLI costs per year, fox?

Getting a check up once a year - common sense. Getting one 6 times a year - pretty useless.

Who the hell is doing that? Do you enjoy getting checkups?

High cost blood cancer screenings for the general population - may not be the best use of funds. Those same screens for high-risk people, very cost effective.

And right there you swerve into the truth about nationalized healthcare - rationing. Well done.

 

[foxpaws]

Not nearly as much as tort reform and interstate competiton. Do you know how much typical OB/GYN PLI costs per year, fox?

Lay off the sauce, foss...

Actually I do know how much my check-ups cost - my company now only provides health insurance with a very high deductible... I pay for everything up to $2,500...

Who the hell is doing that? Do you enjoy getting checkups?

It is an illustration of overuse Foss...

And right there you swerve into the truth about nationalized healthcare - rationing. Well done.

It is exactly what private insurers do foss - They won't pay for expensive tests, unless you have certain pre-approved reasons - like family history. They ration.