first off, WRONG
if you have no insurance and go to a hospital for services you can not afford, yes you are indeed forced into bankruptcy, the hospital will come at you and send you to collection agencies if you do not pay. "rights" do not force bankruptcy!
My soon to be son-n-law is a border patrol agent, he is instructed to ignore those illegals who have already gained entry, does that make them citizens? based on what you are telling us it would be the case!?

second, I did spell out all the details of the two plans and you were invited to look for yourself, instead of looking into the detail, you chose to instead believe someones OPINION and ignore a hard fact staring you in the eye. You continue to claim:

every comparison produced in the press that a bait and switch was being used.

no, no you did not prove this to be the case at all, it was an opinion of what "might be" and assumptions, go ahead and show us proof of how EVERY comparison was bait and switch, you have failed to show any such proof in the least, we are still waiting! Disprove the case I made, go ahead, you have the information and I provided all the details, you continue to point to a supposed article that hints this may be the case only.

and your example of Massachusetts?
ok, the increases were LESS after Romneycare but still well above inflation and how does it compare to the national average, the entire national average had seen reduced increases the past several years, how oh how does Romneycare affect those in the rest of the nation?

so Obamacare is going to save us money and the opponents are the ones using bait and switch tactics?
So far Ricky has only claimed this to be the case but never backed up those claims, he does not want to believe an example I provided and chooses to only listen to the media. Ok, so what do they say?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 58456.html
the wall Street Journal is reputable is it not?
an excerpt:

California wasn't comparing apples to apples. It wasn't even comparing apples to oranges. It was comparing apples to ostriches

can you say "Bait and Switch"?

from the Cato Institute:
http://www.cato.org/publications/commen ... ait-switch

the 1,017-page bill making its way through the House devotes all of six pages to insurance reform — 30 pages, if you count all the definitions and supporting provisions, still less than 3 percent of the bill.

So why the bait and switch?

that bait and switch line was made by them, not me!

the Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... nd-switch/

Mr. Obama is still trying to hide the extent of the bait-and-switch. During the campaign he said, “If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you won’t have to do a thing…. You keep your plan; you keep your doctor.” While he repeated this claim in a speech in Iowa last week, he also reluctantly admitted when questioned more closely that, yes, people may well lose their plan or their doctor.

wow, again they use the term "bait and switch" not me.

But Ricky wants to claim it's the other way around while providing only a few opinions not supported by fact!?

freeman3 wrote:I accessed another Blue Cross PDF file that says growth in family premiums rose 9.0 percent in Mass from 2000-2006 and 6.8% from 2007-2011. That is what the Boston Globe meant by moderating costs.
I never said that health care was a constitutional right (thought as Ricky says the law requires hospital to provide emergency treatment), but alleged simply that rights evolve in the process of development. Do you believe that people can be left to die if they don't have money to pay for treatment? If you don't believe that then aren't you agreeing that health care is a human right (in an advanced western economy)?

No, I don't believe people "should" be left to die. "Can" they be is a nebulous term.

No, I'm not agreeing healthcare is a human right. One has to define what "healthcare" is.

For example, the man in MA prison who has decided he is now a woman. The court ordered the taxpayers to foot the bill. If healthcare means "sex change operations after being convicted of murder with the bill to be paid by the State," then, no, I don't believe in "healthcare as a human right."

tom

if you have no insurance and go to a hospital for services you can not afford, yes you are indeed forced into bankruptcy, the hospital will come at you and send you to collection agencies if you do not pay. "rights" do not force bankruptcy

I didn't disagree with you. However I did say

You aren't forced to go to the emergency ward or to doctor. You have the option of laying down and dieing.

tom

second, I did spell out all the details of the two plans and you were invited to look for yourself, instead of looking into the detail, you chose to instead believe someones OPINION and ignore a hard fact staring you in the eye. You continue to claim:

Please cut and paste where you provided the deductibles, exclusions, caps etc.
Differences in these can make the costs of a plan very different.
I could construct a comparison that would be very different just by altering them. But i didn't cheat, and I've provided you with the opportunity to reproduce your comparison....You haven't.

as for Bait and switch I produced two editorials that detailed how this works. I've assumed you've fallen for the same, because you seem to be unable to replicate your original results...
Why can't you replicate your original results and provide the details on exclusions etc. ?

fate

Can" they be is a nebulous term

Not to someone who's dieing.

rickyp wrote:Fate

I post a study showing that MA has THE HIGHEST per capita health costs of any of the 50 States,

Yes. But MA had the highest per capita costs before their version of the ACA as well.
The question is what happened to medical inflation after Romney care was instituted. Oh wait, here's the answer:
Freeman3

I accessed another Blue Cross PDF file that says growth in family premiums rose 9.0 percent in Mass from 2000-2006 and 6.8% from 2007-2011. That is what the Boston Globe meant by moderating costs

If the ACA has the same moderating affect on health care inflation, and the early indications are that it has, then thats generally considered a boon to the economy. Health care costs are generally considered to be too high aren';t they fate?

If I had wanted to entrap you two liberal, true-believers, I could not have done it half as well as you've done it to yourselves.

MA's system is "moderating costs?" Really? By "cutting" the increase to 6.8%?



Reality check:

U.S. spending on health insurance grew at an accelerated rate in 2011, breaking a two-year trend of smaller cost increases. The culprit, a new study suggests, is not Americans seeking more treatment but rather rapid growth in the price of medical care.

Spending for private health insurance surged by 4.6 percent in 2011, according to a report from the Health Care Cost Institute. That growth rate is faster than the rest of the economy and higher than the previous year, which had 3.8 percent growth.

Average spending on a private insurance patient rose to $4,547 in 2011, compared with $4,349 in 2010. That statistic suggests that a recent downturn in health-care spending may have been a temporary product of the recession rather than a more permanent change, as some health-care economists have hoped.

“We don’t know yet whether this is a one-off year aberration or a resumption of patterns of higher growth,” said Health Care Cost Institute Director David Newman. “We just don’t know. When you have one data point, you’re cautious.”

Nationally in 2011, insurance went up 4.6% in 2011. That was a "surge." Why? Because it represented an increase over 2010.

So, is less than 4.6% an improvement over 6.8%? You guys are awesome!

rickyp wrote:fate

Can" they be is a nebulous term

Not to someone who's dieing.

It's "dying," even in Canada. Unless you mean to "cut from a die."

"Can" implies ability. Can someone be left to die? Sure, just as the Administration did in Benghazi.

The question freeman3 was asking is about oughtness--"Ought (should) a person be left to die."

Secretary Sebelius was perfectly willing to let a 12 year-old girl in need of a lung transplant die.

So, I guess "right" is not necessarily applicable, even to socialists like Sebelius.

Perhaps "Emergency" care needs to be clarified? I would think that life and death care should be dealt with regardless of ability to pay. Treat first and let the hospital try and get the money after treatment. Where does the government need to get involved? Let the hospital/insurance deal with it. Is it cheaper for a family to have insurance than to pay ER bills? Yes. But what if the people make the choice to not pay... What is cheaper then?

What I am NOT ok with are situations like the common cold being treated at an ER. Yes, there are some who will say that a cold can bloom into influenza, or strep or whatever... That is why the OTC meds are available at ANY drug store. Having been in the ER before, I can say that there are some who are there and it is not an emergency.

(Example)
Small boy with finger smashed in car door. Mother took child to ER, and the ER staff wrapped the finger and gave Tylenol for pain. Fingernail fell off next day and re-grew. Is this an emergency? No, this is a take two aspirin and call me in the morning type situation.

Mother never did pay the bill and it went to collections...

But Bbauska, the government is involved. Because emergency departments and hospitals were turning away or transfering indigent patients COngress passed the law.Like you, Congress was appalled that the inability to pay could cost someone their life.
When you make the moral choice to provide medical care, you also assume the responsibility for its cost.. Somehow.
Hospitals, whether private or publicly funded, had to find a way to adapt to the law.
They pass along the costs that aren't covered by indigent patients.. Chiefly, to other patients through higher prices... .
In effect, the law created a way for the uninsured to get care, but didn't bother to find away to pay for their care. So hospitals passed the cost along.
Its the usual magical solution that somewhere things don't have to be paid, and we don't have to be taxed to pay for the moral choice of providing minimal health care...

The rest of your statement is an arguement for finding more sensible ways of providing care at effective prices. And an admisson that ED are a lousy way to do this...
Universal health insurance means that the parent doesn't take the kid to the ER. Maybe he goes to the local clinic instead where costs are far lower.
And with insurance ED aren't swamped with the indigent flu and colds cases... They also find their way to clinics or private practices, where cost of treatment is lower.
The US made a moral choice with the law. But didn't consider the consequences and has never really dealt directly with the consequences.
The same moral choice, not turning away someone for medical treatment, is made when a society chooses to provide universal health care through taxation. But a more rationale, efficient and effective delivery system can be used - rather than the fantasy of "emergency care provision". And thats largely the reason Universal Health care can be provided for 9 to 12% of GDP versus the 17% of the USA... Acceptance that you can't avoid the cost when you assume the responsibility.
Since the ACA will provide pretty much everyone with insurance .... use of EDs should go down. costs should go down, at least there. You might end up with more use of health care because people won't wait too long to seek treatment. But you've just argued that treatment at the appropriate service level makes more sense than ED .... And studies have shown that a healthier populace is more productive...

One important consequence is monetary. According to the American Hospital Association (AHA), in 1996 about 16% of ED patients were uninsured
The ED is the portal of entry for as many as 3 of every 4 uninsured patients admitted to the nation's hospitals Traditionally, uncompensated care was recouped by charging more for services for the insured. Through such cost-shifting, hospitals were able to provide care for the indigent and stay financially solvent. However, prospective payment systems, diagnosis-related groups, and health maintenance organizations have hindered hospitals' abilities to continue this practice. The uncompensated costs to emergency physicians for services provided under EMTALA were estimated to be $426 million in 1996, and the costs to hospitals for uncompensated inpatient care is a staggering $10 billion

rickyp wrote:Universal health insurance means that the parent doesn't take the kid to the ER. Maybe he goes to the local clinic instead where costs are far lower.

That's great, but we don't have Universal health insurance.

Since the ACA will provide pretty much everyone with insurance ....

False. The ACA provides almost no one with insurance. Everyone will be required to have it or pay a fine, but that is NOT the government "providing" insurance.

Furthermore, the estimates are that many millions will still NOT have insurance. The ACA will cost trillions at the benefit of providing a few with insurance, while costing many millions higher premiums and costs (for example: who is picking up the tab for all the new taxes?).

RickyP,
I agree the government is involved. I gave my opinion as to treatment at the ER and what would constitute an emergency. Are you saying the government should mandate a hospital treat all medical situations or just emergencies?

I agree that the ER is not the most cost effective for treatment. Exactly why I gave the maxim "take two aspirin"... I would think that a doctor's visit would be the place to treat non-emergencies.

Could you respond to what I wrote? I said a hospital should treat people and then charge them if they chose the ER or whatever venue for treatment is desired. Please not I never said do not treat. Just make people responsible. Is that where the issue is? Is it responsibility? I notice a trend of not holding people responsible with your positions.

People can get treatment, but have to be responsible enough to get insurance or pay the bill.

Do you think the government should be responsible for every minor medical situation that people have?
Colds?
Splinter removal?
Rash?

I put it in bold print because I want to know if you think that any care should be required to be treated by a hospital at government expense, or just emergency care. (Also, I used the word think. I do not want someone else's opinion. I want yours.)

Ricky. how is the government edict that a hospital must treat emergency patients any different from it's edicts that banks must make bad loans? They forced banks to make bad loans that the banks knew were not sound investments. Your reasoning would follow that we now have socialized housing and "rights" yet these people did in fact go into bankruptcy and the banks suffered because of it. Oh, and how well did this government edict go? It helped create the bad housing market we are still trying to escape from not to mention it helped the economic crash a few years back. But to your reasoning, if the government insists someone can not be turned away, then it's a right???

bbauska[

I agree the government is involved. I gave my opinion as to treatment at the ER and what would constitute an emergency. Are you saying the government should mandate a hospital treat all medical situations or just emergencies?

How do you know if a patient is emergent without going through examination and diagnoses?
And if that has been done do you then turn the patient away if for some reason the issue is deemed too trivial?
Consider the realities an ED doctor faces . And what their role is supposed to be... They aren't supposed to be negotiating fees and services ...just providing the most appropriate care.

I agree that the ER is not the most cost effective for treatment. Exactly why I gave the maxim "take two aspirin"... I would think that a doctor's visit would be the place to treat non-emergencies.

But do you also agree that unless there is universal insurance coverage, there will always be a pool of people who will need to rely on EDs....?

bbauska

Could you respond to what I wrote? I said a hospital should treat people and then charge them if they chose the ER or whatever venue for treatment is desired. Please not I never said do not treat. Just make people responsible. Is that where the issue is? Is it responsibility? I notice a trend of not holding people responsible with your positions.

People are responsible now. They just don't have the means to pay. Hand them any bill you want. So what?
The only alternative, the only place that can't turn them away without proof of insurance are EDs. Either you expand the ED law to all service providers and have them accommodate the indigents the way ED were forced to do so by the Emergent Care law or you insure everyone.To continue with the current situation is absurd.

Bbauska

People can get treatment, but have to be responsible enough to get insurance or pay the bill

.
So, lets just wish away the indigent who can't afford insurance or the bill they receive?
And I suppose this would mean you don't have a problem with the ACA making people get insurance?
or is that another place where people should just do the right thing instinctively?

bbauska

Do you think the government should be responsible for every minor medical situation that people have?
Colds?
Splinter removal?
Rash?

I think a universal health insurance system, means exactly that.
Its what I've experienced my whole life. (well, not dental care, thats been private insurance, but everything else.)

bbauska

I put it in bold print because I want to know if you think that any care should be required to be treated by a hospital at government expense, or just emergency care. (Also, I used the word think. I do not want someone else's opinion. I want yours.)

Universal health insurance means that people will choose the ideal place for care, usually. Not always. But generally given an option people make reasonably good choices.

You do realize my argument isn't ideological. Its practical. If the system of universal health care insurance delivers health care to more people for 9 to 12% of a countries GDP over the 17% that the US uses now, but still doesn`t provide adequate care for all ..... its sensible to move to that system.
Ensuring that everyone is cared for because of the Emergent Care Law, and pretending it isn't a perverse way of socializing health care is a uniquely American way of magical thinking.

Fate

That's great, but we don't have Universal health insurance

Your right. The ACA does fall short.
So some will still depend upon the EDs I suppose.
But fewer than before...
The ACA is not a perfect solution... Just better than the current mess. And incremental movement may make the obvious option more acceptable down the road...

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/april/wil ... e-coverage

We have a tested model. Medicare would work for all of us because it has worked for seniors for almost 50 years. In 1995, Taiwan replaced their private insurance system with one based on Medicare. They went from 60 percent to 100 percent coverage with hardly any growth in costs, and the patients and physicians are happy.
This is no surprise since studies show that the administrative simplicity of Medicare for all could save $400 billion yearly, cover all the uninsured, eliminate significant co-pays and deductibles, allow complete choice of doctor and hospital and improve coverage for all. Physicians could practice privately and independently with guaranteed payment for every patient

.

People are responsible now. They just don't have the means to pay. Hand them any bill you want. So what?

...and thank you for agreeing with us!
This is an argument for universal coverage not for Obamacare, your claim "Obamacare will be good for the economy" is still wrong, you agreed yourself here, People can't buy insurance, so what?