Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama admin. knew millions could not keep their health insurance

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
    You know, you're absolutely right! People should just have the right to judge for themselves what coverage they do and don't need no matter what kind of burden it places on the rest of us.

    Hell, I've decided I don't need auto insurance. I'm a safe driver. I haven't been in an accident in years. I'm sure it'll never happen again, therefore I've determined that I don't need car insurance. Yay freedom!
    Your diet also places a burden on the rest of us. Can I decide what you're having for dinner?

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by BBII View Post
      Your diet also places a burden on the rest of us. Can I decide what you're having for dinner?
      Nope but when I have a heart attack dont whine about footing the bill if I don't have coverage

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Rigs11 View Post
        Nope but when I have a heart attack dont whine about footing the bill if I don't have coverage
        Yeah. Instead you should get subsidized coverage so I can foot the bill before it happens.

        Brilliant!

        And this is what passes for Progressive problem solving these days.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by BBII View Post
          Yeah. Instead you should get subsidized coverage so I can foot the bill before it happens.

          Brilliant!

          And this is what passes for Progressive problem solving these days.
          Or maybe because I have insurance when I otherwise wouldn't have I'd be able to go to a doctor before I have a heart attack and get medications and professional medical advice on changing my lifestyle. Then maybe I avoid the heart attack and my condition is treated at far less expense than in the ER.

          I call that problem solving.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
            Or maybe because I have insurance when I otherwise wouldn't have I'd be able to go to a doctor before I have a heart attack and get medications and professional medical advice on changing my lifestyle. Then maybe I avoid the heart attack and my condition is treated at far less expense than in the ER.

            I call that problem solving.
            Come on now. Even CBO gave up on the old "preventative medicine is cheaper" canard a long time ago.

            http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...not-cut-costs/

            Your high-maintenance is even more burden on me. You should buy me some beer or something.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by BBII View Post
              Come on now. Even CBO gave up on the old "preventative medicine is cheaper" canard a long time ago.

              http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...not-cut-costs/

              Your high-maintenance is even more burden on me. You should buy me some beer or something.
              Not so fast.

              CBO Scoring Shortchanges Preventive Healthcare Spending

              -------------

              In a telephone conversation, Burgess explains that by law, the CBO must only look 10 years out when it develops cost estimates on how a piece of legislation will affect spending and revenues.

              The problem is that the advantages of preventive healthcare spending for chronic diseases do not always fit neatly into that time frame. Programs to reduce the obesity rate, or to trim the increase in diabetes cases, or to keep diabetic blood sugars under control may need longer than 10 years to begin to demonstrate their full economic value.

              Burgess notes that chronic disease care accounts for 70% of healthcare spending, or about $1.6 trillion annually. In this era of care coordination and care management, he explains, the savings from preventive care is "undisputed" by experts. Now, Burgess says, it is time for CBO analysis to reflect how preventive healthcare spending can begin to contain costs and provide long-term savings.
              http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/pa...hcare-Spending


              Rebutting the CBO's Preventative Care Cost Analysis

              ------------------

              The CBO analysis and many legislative approaches to prevention focus on secondary prevention with subsequent medical interventions. They do not address primary and tertiary prevention, which represent a significant portion of health care cost savings.

              The main challenge to secondary prevention has been widely discussed and provides the basis for the CBO assessment. The report states, "to avert one case of acute illness, it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway." We agree that some early prevention efforts, while effective at improving outcomes, were cost prohibitive because they produced widespread screening for multiple diseases. However, the discipline of preventive health care has progressed beyond its early stages to incorporate risk-based targeting and clinical recommendations. Programs such as The Prevention Plan™ combine simple blood tests with online health history and lifestyle questionnaires to identify each individual's top risks and then recommend an action plan to address only those risks. The CBO report states that preventive care "can have the largest benefits relative to costs when it is targeted at people who are most likely to suffer from a particular medical problem." These capabilities are available in the marketplace today, but not included in the analysis.
              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-..._b_270450.html
              Last edited by Fear the Hawk; 10-30-2013, 12:47 PM.

              Comment


              • #52
                OMG! Did youjust quote the huffingtonpuffingronpost as your source material? Might as well post something MSNBC or aljazaar.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Lolz. Imagine if I tried to rebut the CBO's findings as used in the actual ACA budgeting process with some Daily Caller piece or an article from a Healthcare industry-insider site.

                  Here's some more for you...

                  http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0708558

                  Our findings suggest that the broad generalizations made by many presidential candidates can be misleading. These statements convey the message that substantial resources can be saved through prevention. Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not.
                  Generally speaking the whole "More Insured People getting Preventative Treatment Saves us all lots of money" thing is a political urban legend. Completely unsubstantiated.
                  Last edited by BroncoBeavis; 10-30-2013, 01:23 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by BBII View Post
                    Lolz. Imagine if I tried to rebut the CBO's findings as used in the actual ACA budgeting process with some Daily Caller piece or an article from a Healthcare industry-insider site.

                    Here's some more for you...

                    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0708558



                    Generally speaking the whole "More Insured People getting Preventative Treatment Saves us all lots of money" thing is a political urban legend. Completely unsubstantiated.
                    Uh huh. Two ad hominem attacks and no real response to the issues brought up by the critics of CBOs findings. Figures.

                    No wonder you consider preventive care savings an "urban legend." Does that bubble you live in have cable?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by UltimateHoboW/Shotgun View Post
                      OMG! Did youjust quote the huffingtonpuffingronpost as your source material? Might as well post something MSNBC or aljazaar.
                      huffingtonpost a site found by/with your buttbuddy brietbart? lame attempt.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
                        Uh huh. Two ad hominem attacks and no real response to the issues brought up by the critics of CBOs findings. Figures.

                        No wonder you consider preventive care savings an "urban legend." Does that bubble you live in have cable?
                        Before I go deeper, are you going to ride to my defense the next time Roh chides me for questioning CBO numbers?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by peacepipe View Post
                          huffingtonpost a site found by/with your buttbuddy brietbart? lame attempt.
                          Yeah, such good partners that britbart starts their own their own site. . At least I picked this story from NBC.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by BBII View Post
                            Before I go deeper, are you going to ride to my defense the next time Roh chides me for questioning CBO numbers?
                            You've already demonstrated reading comprehension problems and a tendency to respond with irrelevant quips, so go ahead and "go deeper." This ought to be worth a laugh or two.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
                              You've already demonstrated reading comprehension problems and a tendency to respond with irrelevant quips, so go ahead and "go deeper." This ought to be worth a laugh or two.
                              Yeah, you really hit a home run there saying CBO lacks credibility because the CEO of "U.S. Preventative Medicine" says that Preventative Medicine is all that and a bag of chips.

                              At the end of the day, all your sources did was whine about methodology, yet presented nothing in the way of their own evidence. Because if they tried, it would be pretty thin.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
                                OK righties, I concede that Obama oversold this aspect of the PPACA. That said, I don't care that some people will be forced to upgrade. The PPACA requires standards in order to work. We can debate and adjust those standards down the line if necessary.
                                I like this the way you use the term "oversold" to replace the term "lied to". Car salesmen have been doing this for years with great success.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X