Trumptards Series #1 - why prexisting illness coverage should be removed

Yeah right · Jun 22, 2018

I watched one of those tv documentaries about “Obamacare” back in 2012 or something. They talked about the compromise that was used to get the ball rolling. The Healthcare plan was not something that could be removed, only fixed. Obama and dems knew it was not perfect but it was just start of something great. Obama knew that the next president would have to add to it or risk backlash.

One of the favored parts of it is the protection of prexisting illnessss. This is fake data but, 40% u.S have diabetes, obese= heart problems, shity bones, high cholesterol, smokers issues, etc.

The average American doesn’t even have enough money for an emergency medical situation. I think that they don’t even have $500+ in the bank.

So Trumpards, tell me why it’s a good idea to remove this protection?

Aim64C · Jun 23, 2018

For starters, Obamacare was designed to destroy the U.S. healthcare system, what little of it remained, at least.

The problem to start with is "Insurance." Medical Insurance, WAAAY back in the day, used to be a plan to cover your bills while you were out of work for medical reasons. It eventually morphed into a plan to help pay for unexpected injury as medical technology advanced and surgery became more common.

Health Insurance was NEVER supposed to cover routine care and become a Health Service. However, because it is mandated in the U.S. for full time employees to be offered insurance through the employer, health insurance soon became health service. People pay money into a system that is supposed to pay most of their bills when they go to a hospital or clinic, and the costs are all negotiated by the health service companies.

A relatively new phonemon has sprung up in the U.S., though, and that is clinic memberships. Because health service companies have become so bloated relative to the services they provide, a number of clinics offer membership services. Pay a flat rate fee every month, and simply come in to address minor care issues, and even common childhood stuff - like broken bones, sprains, etc. They have become quite popular in places they have popped up in, and are far more cost effective than classic health insurance plans.

As for why screen based on pre-existing conditions? Because it's absurd. A person with a serious pre-existing condition has vastly increased costs relative to a person without those conditions. Obamacare didn't make it so that smokers can't be charged excesses by insurance companies because they represent a statistically significant risk group. If you have a pre-existing condition and want someone to agree to pay for the treatment of that condition, then you should expect a higher rate of charge relative to those who do not have such conditions.

Numerous studies have shown that when consumers (which is what you are when you are using a healthcare service) are expected to pay for things, they become far more judicious in their spending. They contest billing oddities far more often, and they tend to be far more aggressive in their assessing of the value they receive. On the other hand, when that cost is obscured from them and they are effectively spending someone else's money, they do not assess these things the same way.

Even in the EU, where things are "better" (on paper), when you begin to audit how the health services bill the tax payer, the results are ghastly. Within the U.S. you can look at the $50 charged for the 2 aspirin you were given while in the hospital and refuse to pay until that's been explained (the billing department will charge you for a whole bottle of x just because you were given some at one point - normally, patient bills are not itemized and patients simply sign the form authorizing the hospital to bill the insurance company for this amount, and how does the insurance company know whether or not you actually had a consultation with the radiologist who simply walked by your room and looked at your chart?).

There are a lot of changes on the way. The important things you need to know are that healthcare costs have been artificially inflated by fraudulent billing enabled by insurance dogma, as well as a focus on treatments over cures (use of the FDA to control legal prescriptions - evil institution). The issue of pre-existing conditions will fade into the background in a few years as the costs drop and the quality of care goes up.

QueefCatcher69 · Jun 23, 2018

Why are you bringing politics into a Japanese fictional character base?

Clown World · Jun 23, 2018

Stuff you liberal, good morning to everyone but liberals.

Lightbringer · Jun 23, 2018

Aim64C said:
For starters, Obamacare was designed to destroy the U.S. healthcare system, what little of it remained, at least.

The problem to start with is "Insurance." Medical Insurance, WAAAY back in the day, used to be a plan to cover your bills while you were out of work for medical reasons. It eventually morphed into a plan to help pay for unexpected injury as medical technology advanced and surgery became more common.

Health Insurance was NEVER supposed to cover routine care and become a Health Service. However, because it is mandated in the U.S. for full time employees to be offered insurance through the employer, health insurance soon became health service. People pay money into a system that is supposed to pay most of their bills when they go to a hospital or clinic, and the costs are all negotiated by the health service companies.

A relatively new phonemon has sprung up in the U.S., though, and that is clinic memberships. Because health service companies have become so bloated relative to the services they provide, a number of clinics offer membership services. Pay a flat rate fee every month, and simply come in to address minor care issues, and even common childhood stuff - like broken bones, sprains, etc. They have become quite popular in places they have popped up in, and are far more cost effective than classic health insurance plans.

As for why screen based on pre-existing conditions? Because it's absurd. A person with a serious pre-existing condition has vastly increased costs relative to a person without those conditions. Obamacare didn't make it so that smokers can't be charged excesses by insurance companies because they represent a statistically significant risk group. If you have a pre-existing condition and want someone to agree to pay for the treatment of that condition, then you should expect a higher rate of charge relative to those who do not have such conditions.

Numerous studies have shown that when consumers (which is what you are when you are using a healthcare service) are expected to pay for things, they become far more judicious in their spending. They contest billing oddities far more often, and they tend to be far more aggressive in their assessing of the value they receive. On the other hand, when that cost is obscured from them and they are effectively spending someone else's money, they do not assess these things the same way.

Even in the EU, where things are "better" (on paper), when you begin to audit how the health services bill the tax payer, the results are ghastly. Within the U.S. you can look at the $50 charged for the 2 aspirin you were given while in the hospital and refuse to pay until that's been explained (the billing department will charge you for a whole bottle of x just because you were given some at one point - normally, patient bills are not itemized and patients simply sign the form authorizing the hospital to bill the insurance company for this amount, and how does the insurance company know whether or not you actually had a consultation with the radiologist who simply walked by your room and looked at your chart?).

There are a lot of changes on the way. The important things you need to know are that healthcare costs have been artificially inflated by fraudulent billing enabled by insurance dogma, as well as a focus on treatments over cures (use of the FDA to control legal prescriptions - evil institution). The issue of pre-existing conditions will fade into the background in a few years as the costs drop and the quality of care goes up.

Before Obamacare, 100,000 people died every year from lack of healthcare. Once Obamacare once implemented, that number dropped to 40,000 people.

Yeah, it really "destroyed" the healthcare system. Man, you Trumptards bring "cognitive dissonance" a whole new meaning.

Aim64C · Jun 23, 2018

Lightbringer said:
Before Obamacare, 100,000 people died every year from lack of healthcare. Once Obamacare once implemented, that number dropped to 40,000 people.

Fake news is fake.

Yeah, it really "destroyed" the healthcare system. Man, you Trumptards bring "cognitive dissonance" a whole new meaning.

You must be registered for see links

It did, there were fewer people with health insurance under Obamacare than prior to it. Many were shifted onto state-funded healthcare programs that had worse coverage than their prior providers and had fewer options while on those programs.

Even CNN's commentators had to get off the propaganda parade:

You must be registered for see links

An estimated 71% of the new insurance arises through Medicaid, using 2014 calculations based on analysis by Haislmaier and Gonshorowski of data from the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare.

The harsh reality awaiting these low-income Americans is undeniable: according to 2013 data from a 2014 Merritt Hawkins study, 55% of doctors already refuse new Medicaid patients. According to the HSC Health Tracking Physician Survey, 2008, the percentage of doctors that refuse new Medicaid patients dwarf by about 8 to 10 times the percentage that refuses new private insurance patients.
Such "insurance" from Obamacare not only fails to provide access to doctors, but research in the top medical journals such as Cancer, American Journal of Cardiology, Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation and Annals of Surgery, show that Medicaid beneficiaries suffer worse outcomes than similar patients with private insurance ... all at an added cost of another $800 billion by CBO estimates to taxpayers after the decade.

Working as intended.

Let us continue:

The law already forced termination of health insurance for millions of Americans estimated as 4.7 million by the Associated Press -- insurance they personally had chosen to buy. The Congressional Budget Office now projects that a stunning 10 million Americans will be forced off their chosen employer-based health insurance by 2021 -- a tenfold increase in the number that was initially projected back in 2011, at the onset of the law.
Along with that forced change of coverage, many suddenly find themselves without access to their chosen doctors.
Despite the assertion that the law increases insurance choices, the Obamacare exchanges do quite the opposite for those dependent on them and their government's subsidies. McKinsey reported 68% of Obamacare insurance options only cover narrow or very narrow provider networks, double that of the previous year.

If you like your healthcare plan, you can turn it sideways and shove it up your ass.

And a study in late 2014 commissioned by the prestigious American Heart Association determined that the specialists essential to diagnose and treat stroke, one of the most disabling and lethal diseases in the United States, are in severe shortage under Obamacare insurance exchange plans.
Indeed, unless one has the financial resources or power to skirt the new system, many of America's top doctors and hospitals are no longer available.

Which is EXACTLY what it was intended to do. It is already what similar systems do in Europe.

Lightbringer · Jun 23, 2018

Aim64C said:
Fake news is fake.

You must be registered for see links

It did, there were fewer people with health insurance under Obamacare than prior to it. Many were shifted onto state-funded healthcare programs that had worse coverage than their prior providers and had fewer options while on those programs.

Even CNN's commentators had to get off the propaganda parade:

You must be registered for see links

An estimated 71% of the new insurance arises through Medicaid, using 2014 calculations based on analysis by Haislmaier and Gonshorowski of data from the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare.

The harsh reality awaiting these low-income Americans is undeniable: according to 2013 data from a 2014 Merritt Hawkins study, 55% of doctors already refuse new Medicaid patients. According to the HSC Health Tracking Physician Survey, 2008, the percentage of doctors that refuse new Medicaid patients dwarf by about 8 to 10 times the percentage that refuses new private insurance patients.
Such "insurance" from Obamacare not only fails to provide access to doctors, but research in the top medical journals such as Cancer, American Journal of Cardiology, Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation and Annals of Surgery, show that Medicaid beneficiaries suffer worse outcomes than similar patients with private insurance ... all at an added cost of another $800 billion by CBO estimates to taxpayers after the decade.

Working as intended.

Let us continue:

The law already forced termination of health insurance for millions of Americans estimated as 4.7 million by the Associated Press -- insurance they personally had chosen to buy. The Congressional Budget Office now projects that a stunning 10 million Americans will be forced off their chosen employer-based health insurance by 2021 -- a tenfold increase in the number that was initially projected back in 2011, at the onset of the law.
Along with that forced change of coverage, many suddenly find themselves without access to their chosen doctors.
Despite the assertion that the law increases insurance choices, the Obamacare exchanges do quite the opposite for those dependent on them and their government's subsidies. McKinsey reported 68% of Obamacare insurance options only cover narrow or very narrow provider networks, double that of the previous year.

If you like your healthcare plan, you can turn it sideways and shove it up your ass.

And a study in late 2014 commissioned by the prestigious American Heart Association determined that the specialists essential to diagnose and treat stroke, one of the most disabling and lethal diseases in the United States, are in severe shortage under Obamacare insurance exchange plans.
Indeed, unless one has the financial resources or power to skirt the new system, many of America's top doctors and hospitals are no longer available.

Which is EXACTLY what it was intended to do. It is already what similar systems do in Europe.

Leave it to a Trumptard to dismiss fact as "fake news."

Also, you just cherry-picked comments out of context. You didn't site any statistic whatsoever. Obamacare covered 20 million more people than before it was implemented. Nothing you said refuted my previous statement. All of your "quotes" were in relation to a separate topic altogether which we are not discussing.

This is data taken from the CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention), the National Bureau of Economic Research, and the National Center for Health Statistics)

You must be registered for see links

You are a disingenuous hack.

Aim64C · Jun 23, 2018

Lightbringer said:
Leave it to a Trumptard to dismiss fact as "fake news."

You never cited a fact. You made a claim.

The IOM estimated the number of deaths to lack of health insurance in 1993 to be around 18,000 per year. This method was horribly flawed, but not withstanding, was updated in 2009 by another group to get the 47,000-ish figure. No academic study I am aware of claims 100,000, as you do.

Of course, this study method is flawed:

You must be registered for see links

Also, you just cherry-picked comments out of context. You didn't site any statistic whatsoever. Obamacare covered 20 million more people than before it was implemented. Nothing you said refuted my previous statement. All of your "quotes" were in relation to a separate topic altogether which we are not discussing.

If you cared to read, this was already addressed. But, your script doesn't allow that, so I really don't care to go around in circles with you on it.

For the interested:

You must be registered for see links

The “20 million” claim, while often repeated, is a mythological political creature of the worst sort. Supported by absolutely no hard data at all, it ought to conjure up the same kind of scoffs serious scientists mutter when well-meaning travelers seek to prove the existence of Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster.

At a recent House Budget Committee meeting on the “failures of ObamaCare,” Ed Haislmaier, a Heritage Foundation senior research fellow, explained only about 14 million gained health insurance from 2014 to 2015. Preliminary data for 2016 reveal “enrollment in the individual market grew by 842,028 individuals, enrollment in fully insured employer plans declined by 1,128,597 individuals, enrollment in self-insured employer plans increased by 776,780 individuals, and Medicaid and [Children’s Health Insurance Program] enrollment increased by 2,044,809 individuals,” Haislmaier said.

The roughly 2.5 million people added in 2016 brings the total number of Americans who have gained access to health insurance to 16.5 million, well below the alleged “20 million” slogan Democrats have made into their rallying cry. But even this figure paints a wildly inaccurate picture of the alleged benefits of the ACA.

...

According to Haislmaier’s congressional testimony, “Medicaid accounted for 81 percent of the incremental growth in enrollment in 2016—a ratio consistent with the experience during the previous two year’s of ACA implementation.”

In line with Haislmaier’s claims, a comparison of the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline reports for Medicaid show enrollment in the program has risen dramatically compared to pre-ACA estimates. In 2009, CBO projected average monthly enrollment in Medicaid and CHIP in 2016 would be 58.3 million. In CBO’s most recent report, released in January, it reported average monthly enrollment exceeded 76 million in 2016, a 30 percent increase over the 2009 estimate.

So, you know, that. When you take out the people who would have qualified for Medicaid, anyway, and account for the people who were pushed off of their insurance plans and forced to take medicaid, the result is that any net gains in the number of people covered by health insurance vanish into the margin of error for the data set.

Then, when you actually look up what it means to be on medicaid coverage... depending upon who and where you are, you're actually better off not being covered by insurance than covered by medicaid.

This is data taken from the CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention), the National Bureau of Economic Research, and the National Center for Health Statistics)

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see links

I just gave you numbers, above. Real numbers. Not survey data.

You are a disingenuous hack.

Let's look at more real numbers:

You must be registered for see links

Major surgical procedures: A 2010 study of 893,658 major surgical operations performed between 2003 to 2007, published in the Annals of Surgery, found that being on Medicaid was associated with the longest length of stay, the most total hospital costs, and the highest risk of death. Medicaid patients were almost twice as likely to die in the hospital than those with private insurance. By comparison, uninsured patients were about 25% less likely than those with Medicaid to have an “in-hospital death.” Another recent study found similar outcomes for Medicaid patients undergoing trauma surgery.

Lung transplants: A 2011 study of 11,385 patients undergoing lung transplants for pulmonary diseases, published in the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, found that Medicaid patients were 8.1% less likely to survive 10 years after the surgery than their privately insured and uninsured counterparts. Medicaid insurance status was a significant, independent predictor of death after three years–even after controlling for other clinical factors that could increase someone’s risk of poor outcomes.

So... "coverage."

Again, for those interested. I'll have to figure out how to terminate this clown's script at some point. Shilling for the forces of evil, he be.

Mark my words. It will be as though you never existed.

Aim64C · Jun 23, 2018

Lightbringer said:
Bro, you're doing the same thing you always do. You just sandwich a bunch of irrelevant data into pages of text and pretend like you made a cohesive argument.

A coherent argument was made. You were destroyed. Goodbye.

The numbers you're citing are for specific cases, and you're creating a non-sequitur argument with them.

Read.

I cited you official data about how many people were covered before and after Obamacare and how many people died due to lack of healthcare before and after the implementation of Obamacare.

No, you did not. You never made a single citation. You posted a couple links, but I ain't clickin' that shit to figure out what it is you're talking about. You're not worth it, and I already have the real numbers, which were posted.

The only other numbers that exist, which are "official" are based on survey data that is massaged by 'economic adjustment factors' and other accounting gimmicks. The real numbers, which count actual enrollments tracked by the CBO and others, were provided above.

Nothing you cited discredits this and you're calling official numbers, the numbers of federal organizations whose jobs is to monitor and track these numbers, as "fake news."

Read.

Then after all of that you cite mainstream media which ultimately get there information from these government databases.

Read.

You are a moron.

And with that, we are done. Like you never existed. Either you will reject who you are now and become something else, or your compute stack will be terminated. There will be no further comms with an irrelevant object.

Lightbringer · Jun 24, 2018

Aim64C said:
A coherent argument was made. You were destroyed. Goodbye.

Read.

No, you did not. You never made a single citation. You posted a couple links, but I ain't clickin' that shit to figure out what it is you're talking about. You're not worth it, and I already have the real numbers, which were posted.

The only other numbers that exist, which are "official" are based on survey data that is massaged by 'economic adjustment factors' and other accounting gimmicks. The real numbers, which count actual enrollments tracked by the CBO and others, were provided above.

Read.

Read.

And with that, we are done. Like you never existed. Either you will reject who you are now and become something else, or your compute stack will be terminated. There will be no further comms with an irrelevant object.

Lmao. You're telling me to read yet you just said you refused to read my links.

You're literally dismissing an objective fact as fake news. Why would I put any effort into "debating" with you?

You're arguing because you want to prove something. I gave you the means to educate yourself and I'm not going to waste more time with an infowarrior. If you wanna keep living in a bubble of ignorance. That's your choice. I could care less. Until you learn how to stay on point and not write walls of pointless text that have little or nothing to do with what we're talking about, then there's no reason for me to even acknowledge you.

Onii Chan · Jun 24, 2018

Lightbringer said:
Before Obamacare, 100,000 people died every year from lack of healthcare. Once Obamacare once implemented, that number dropped to 40,000 people.

Yeah, it really "destroyed" the healthcare system. Man, you Trumptards bring "cognitive dissonance" a whole new meaning.

You must be registered for see images

LMAO 100k people died a year? ... whew, i'm sorry sir but i believe you're suffering from a mild case of autism.

Lightbringer · Jun 24, 2018

Onii Chan said:
You must be registered for see images

LMAO 100k people died a year? ... whew, i'm sorry sir but i believe you're suffering from a mild case of autism.

I believe you're suffering from an extreme case of cognitive dissonance. National statistics prove you wrong.

You must be registered for see links

"CDC estimates that every year, Americans contract 1.7 million infections while being treated in hospitals. These infections are associated with approximately 99,000 deaths annually."

You must be registered for see images

Aim64C · Jun 24, 2018

Lightbringer said:
I believe you're suffering from an extreme case of cognitive dissonance. National statistics prove you wrong.

You must be registered for see links

"CDC estimates that every year, Americans contract 1.7 million infections while being treated in hospitals. These infections are associated with approximately 99,000 deaths annually."

You must be registered for see images

Okay, okay....
Because I had to stop and laugh for like ten minutes....

I'll humor [R]. Not just where we go one, we go all - but no one left behind, either.

You realize what that statistic is, right? Those are the number of people who were in a hospital, who then contracted an infection while in the hospital. Those infections were associated with around 99,000 deaths annually. It should be noted that this is "associated" - in other words, of people who died in a hospital, 99,000 of them were also being treated for an infection while in the hospital. It doesn't mean the infection caused their death, nor does it mean that they were not being treated for the infection, either.

This statistic has absolutely nothing to do with health insurance or the number of people with/without medical coverage.

Clown World · Jun 27, 2018

Aim64C said:
Okay, okay....
Because I had to stop and laugh for like ten minutes....

I'll humor [R]. Not just where we go one, we go all - but no one left behind, either.

You realize what that statistic is, right? Those are the number of people who were in a hospital, who then contracted an infection while in the hospital. Those infections were associated with around 99,000 deaths annually. It should be noted that this is "associated" - in other words, of people who died in a hospital, 99,000 of them were also being treated for an infection while in the hospital. It doesn't mean the infection caused their death, nor does it mean that they were not being treated for the infection, either.

This statistic has absolutely nothing to do with health insurance or the number of people with/without medical coverage.

nice, its a shame to see lightbringer is still being retarded as ever, i remember the days when he attempted to refute the bell curve lmao

Yeah right · Jun 27, 2018

Are we also going to ignore 1/5 people not paying for pills because they are expensive? Before you say retarded things, medical insurance covers a most or part of Rx.

Aim64C · Jun 27, 2018

Yeah right said:
Are we also going to ignore 1/5 people not paying for pills because they are expensive? Before you say retarded things, medical insurance covers a most or part of Rx.

Review FDA procedures. Review patent procedures. Review medical licensing laws.

Pharmaceutical companies will only advance through the multi-year, multi-million dollar process of certifying a drug for treating a single condition if the process for creating it can be patented. Doctors are not allowed to be doctors in the U.S. (or pretty much anywhere, for that matter). There are numerous studies that have been done on the effectiveness of x or y common drug or food item for treating or even curing various conditions - with very favorable results. Many of these are stable compounds with very few adverse effects and well documented exposure/toxicity guidelines under the old MSDS (before it was changed to... whatever the hell they are calling it now - same idea, different acronym), as well as medical studies.

There is no reason why a doctor should not be able to take that data, present it to the patient, and allow the patient to decide whether or not to go forward with a treatment using that substance. This is what doctors used to do. However, after the FDA, a doctor will lose his license if he is aware the patient is taking a substance defined by the FDA as medicinal and continues to see the patient for that condition.

Right to Try, signed into effect - Finally, some modicum of Justice.

My mother had cancer and it got to the point where she was diagnosed terminal. She was going to die. Period. End of story. There was research on a rather common drug that suggested it might be a plausible treatment for cancer. It was used in treating several conditions and had well established dosing guidelines as well as toxicity and drug interaction research. It simply wasn't approved for treatment of cancer. Better yet, it was quite affordable - as in, as cheap as many over the counter medicines. Since it was defined as a controlled pharmaceutical, however, it could not be prescribed by her doctor. If we acquired it ourselves through alternative means, he could not agree to see her and monitor her condition for improvement or other advice. He would lose his license to practice medicine if a board ever found out.

June 20, 2007.

It was kind of funny, in a way. My mom always thought it was disgusting how people voided their bowels when they died. She died on the toilet - so, I suppose she was spared that humiliation, in a sense.

Now - I hold no delusions that some random hail-mary drug was going to spare Mom. The point is that even though the system had declared her the walking dead, it wouldn't even let us try something sensible because it was not approved by the government. Words fail me at describing the amount of raw contempt I have for these regulatory control freaks. There isn't a death cruel enough to properly send them off to hell with, unfortunately.

When the FDA is finally destroyed, or has become something entirely different from what it is today, and the various pharmaceutical companies are competing for value, rather than certification... the cost of treatment for many things is going to drop to the floor, particularly when doctors are doctors once again, and inform their patients that simple lifestyle adjustments are shown to be as effective or even more effective than surgery, drugs, etc. The current hospital structure has people doped up on fifty different medications that have negligible influence over eating decent meals and making a point to make longer walks than the trip from the parking space to the grocery aisle.

Clown World · Jun 28, 2018

Lightbringer said:
I believe you're suffering from an extreme case of cognitive dissonance. National statistics prove you wrong.

You must be registered for see links

"CDC estimates that every year, Americans contract 1.7 million infections while being treated in hospitals. These infections are associated with approximately 99,000 deaths annually."

You must be registered for see images

Ad populum and appeal to authority, First of all their is enough genetic variation among humans for them to be classified into separate races, -> cavalli sforza.
Second of all there is a plethora of information on the basis of race and enough information.

IQ is genetic, race mixing makes us dumber

You must be registered for see links

Additional proof that IQ is genetic

You must be registered for see links

Even more proof that IQ is genetic

You must be registered for see links

Trumptards Series #1 - why prexisting illness coverage should be removed

Active member

Active member

Awards

Member

Bonbibonkers' bf

Active member

Active member

Awards

Active member

Active member

Awards

Active member

Awards

Active member

Active member

Awards

Active member

Active member

Awards

Bonbibonkers' bf

Active member

Active member

Awards

Bonbibonkers' bf

Active member

Active member

Awards

Active member