Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Full Version: did anyone catch the Cruz vs Sanders health care debate?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
looking for some opinions other than reddit, cnn, msm and so on.  


It is clear that Cruz is a highly intelligent person who is very good at debate


it is clear that Sanders is passionate about everyone having healthcare.



Personally I thought Cruz did very well.  Clearly brought up problems of the current system and possible solutions.  To me Bernie only stayed on the rich people are evil, denial of high costs of the ACA platform.


 

Quote:looking for some opinions other than reddit, cnn, msm and so on.


It is clear that Cruz is a highly intelligent person who is very good at debate


it is clear that Sanders is passionate about everyone having healthcare.



Personally I thought Cruz did very well. Clearly brought up problems of the current system and possible solutions. To me Bernie only stayed on the rich people are evil, denial of high costs of the ACA platform.


They stood for what they believe. Sanders really wants a U.K. Version on healthcare. But to say he denied high cost of ACA is false.


Cruz was standard cross state lines purchase. You choose you're insurance. Although he wouldn't say healthcare was a right. Sanders feels it is.



Both men are far better than what we got to choose from.
Quote:Both men are far better than what we got to choose from.
 

Amen.  How this became a choice between Trump and Clinton astounds me.
I did enjoy the clarification of 29ers and 49ers was.  The beauty salon lady brought up a pretty issue in forcing businesses to offer employee healthcare and how it could actually hurt the business growing.  


I get the point of forcing businesses with lots of employees to do that but maybe it should be more based on net revenue of businesses instead of simply number of employees.  

Quote:I did enjoy the clarification of 29ers and 49ers was.  The beauty salon lady brought up a pretty issue in forcing businesses to offer employee healthcare and how it could actually hurt the business growing.  


I get the point of forcing businesses with lots of employees to do that but maybe it should be more based on net revenue of businesses instead of simply number of employees.  
 

Bernie stumbled slightly on this question. All he had to say was if Texas had opted for Medicaid expansion the Salon owner and her employees would be able to opt in and get pretty good insurance. The Salon owner wouldn't have to pay to cover her employees and could also get her own insurance (she was uninsured). The salon workers, who probably don't get paid much, could get insurance too. He didn't hammer enough how this would be a win win. 

Quote:Amen.  How this became a choice between Trump and Clinton astounds me.
And yet they both agree that changes should be made, which the ball got rolling by President Trumps EO the first day in office.
Quote:looking for some opinions other than reddit, cnn, msm and so on.  


It is clear that Cruz is a highly intelligent person who is very good at debate


it is clear that Sanders is passionate about everyone having healthcare.



Personally I thought Cruz did very well.  Clearly brought up problems of the current system and possible solutions.  To me Bernie only stayed on the rich people are evil, denial of high costs of the ACA platform.


 
 

I didn't watch the debate so I can't comment on it directly.

 

I think the biggest problem is that most people don't understand the concept of insurance vs. healthcare.  Insurance is supposed to be  there to cover an unexpected or catastrophic event.  It wasn't meant to cover routine doctor visits, birth control, etc.  That's why people used to buy health insurance and why employers used to offer it as part of a benefits package along with life insurance, long/short term disability, etc.

 

It wasn't until the 1970's that HMO's (Health Maintenance Organizations) came along that provided routine care at a fixed price for customers that was pre-negotiated with health care providers.  The way it works is that health care providers would offer a service for a less amount if paid by the HMO in return for driving more patients to them.  Essentially HMO's are doing what people can and should be doing for themselves.  Here's an example of how the system works.

 

Say a health care provider offers a routine physical in his office for say $100 (just to keep the math simple).  If you walk into the office with "no coverage" and paid out-of-pocket it would cost you $100 for the physical.  Now say the HMO and the health care provider make a deal that a physical would cost $80 if the patient was a member of the HMO.  In return, the HMO added the provider to their "network list", so the provider is assuming that he will see more patients that belong to the HMO.

 

The HMO would turn around and charge the patient say $10 per month as a premium.  They would also tell the patient that a physical exam would only cost them $20 and they are able to get one physical annually.

 

People will look at this and think "I only have to pay $20 for a physical rather than $100.  That's a good deal".  What they don't realize is, they are paying the exact same amount for their physical PLUS paying the HMO for the "service".  The provider still gets his $100 = ($80 from the HMO + $20 from the patient).  He also benefits from getting more patients.

 

The HMO on the other hand makes money two ways.  The first way is that they are gambling that the patient, especially a younger one will not use the "benefit" and get the annual physical.  If they don't then they just made $120 annually on that one patient (remember the premium that is charged).

 

The second way that they make money is even more simple.  Remember the premium that the patient pays?  $10 per month for a year = $120.  If the patient actually uses the service and gets a physical, the HMO only has to pay $80 out of that $120 that it's getting so they still made $40 on that patient.

 

This is a very simple and crude example of what "healthcare" has become and how the industry makes the money that they do.  HMO's have pretty much "merged" with health insurance companies that will provide "$5 office visits" along with coverage for a catastrophic event.

 

The way to fix it is to allow individuals to buy insurance to cover a catastrophic event, and allow them to save money on their own tax free to pay for their "health maintenance".  One of the biggest flaws of Obamacare is making certain types of "coverage" mandatory even if a person will never use that type of service.  A good example is birth control.  Another example is "women specific needs" such as mammograms or pap smears.
Quote:I didn't watch the debate so I can't comment on it directly.


I think the biggest problem is that most people don't understand the concept of insurance vs. healthcare. Insurance is supposed to be there to cover an unexpected or catastrophic event. It wasn't meant to cover routine doctor visits, birth control, etc. That's why people used to buy health insurance and why employers used to offer it as part of a benefits package along with life insurance, long/short term disability, etc.


It wasn't until the 1970's that HMO's (Health Maintenance Organizations) came along that provided routine care at a fixed price for customers that was pre-negotiated with health care providers. The way it works is that health care providers would offer a service for a less amount if paid by the HMO in return for driving more patients to them. Essentially HMO's are doing what people can and should be doing for themselves. Here's an example of how the system works.


Say a health care provider offers a routine physical in his office for say $100 (just to keep the math simple). If you walk into the office with "no coverage" and paid out-of-pocket it would cost you $100 for the physical. Now say the HMO and the health care provider make a deal that a physical would cost $80 if the patient was a member of the HMO. In return, the HMO added the provider to their "network list", so the provider is assuming that he will see more patients that belong to the HMO.


The HMO would turn around and charge the patient say $10 per month as a premium. They would also tell the patient that a physical exam would only cost them $20 and they are able to get one physical annually.


People will look at this and think "I only have to pay $20 for a physical rather than $100. That's a good deal". What they don't realize is, they are paying the exact same amount for their physical PLUS paying the HMO for the "service". The provider still gets his $100 = ($80 from the HMO + $20 from the patient). He also benefits from getting more patients.


The HMO on the other hand makes money two ways. The first way is that they are gambling that the patient, especially a younger one will not use the "benefit" and get the annual physical. If they don't then they just made $120 annually on that one patient (remember the premium that is charged).


The second way that they make money is even more simple. Remember the premium that the patient pays? $10 per month for a year = $120. If the patient actually uses the service and gets a physical, the HMO only has to pay $80 out of that $120 that it's getting so they still made $40 on that patient.


This is a very simple and crude example of what "healthcare" has become and how the industry makes the money that they do. HMO's have pretty much "merged" with health insurance companies that will provide "$5 office visits" along with coverage for a catastrophic event.


The way to fix it is to allow individuals to buy insurance to cover a catastrophic event, and allow them to save money on their own tax free to pay for their "health maintenance". One of the biggest flaws of Obamacare is making certain types of "coverage" mandatory even if a person will never use that type of service. A good example is birth control. Another example is "women specific needs" such as mammograms or pap smears.



The easy fix is to cut the middle man out entirely and insure everyone.
Did Sanders drive his 172k car to the debate? Should he even be on the road?
Quote:Did Sanders drive his 172k car to the debate? Should he even be on the road?


That old loon prolly already has dents in the front fender from hittin people in the walmart parking lot.
Quote:The easy fix is to cut the middle man out entirely and insure everyone.
 

In your eyes that might be the "easy fix".  You've made a small bit of progress by acknowledging that there is a health care problem and Obamacare didn't "fix" it.

 

So how would the "easy fix" work?  Perhaps allow people to keep more of the money that they earned tax free and allow them to put it into an interest earning savings account to pay for "routine" medical care?  Then they can purchase true health insurance to cover them in the case of a catastrophic event?  In the event of the death of that person, can they set it up so that the money in their health savings account could be passed on to a spouse/child/anyone else without a "tax penalty"?

 

What does "insure everyone" mean?  Are you saying that "everyone" would be covered in the event of a catastrophic event?  Who pays for that?  Is that not already in place?

 

Look at it this way.  The thug that just got shot on the North side because of some gang war gets taken to the hospital.  He receives the best care there but still dies.  He gets buried and neither he nor his family pays a single penny for it.  Who pays for that?  The ambulance has to be paid for.  The doctors and nurses need to be paid.  The hospital needs to be paid.  The Coroner needs to be paid.  The mortician needs to be paid. etc.  Who pays for that?

 

My point is that taxpayers already pay for those that don't have the responsibility or means to pay for themselves.  The "middle man" is the way that government funneled money to insurance companies with Obamacare.
Quote:The easy fix is to cut the middle man out entirely and insure everyone.
 

No, the easy fix is to cut the middle man out entirely by insuring no one.
Quote:No, the easy fix is to cut the middle man out entirely by insuring no one.


Can you show me a system like this that currently works?
sanders wishes he could be half the man and a tenth of the politician that Ted Cruz is.

Quote:Can you show me a system like this that currently works?
 

Can you show me one that doesn't?
Quote:sanders wishes he could be half the man and a tenth of the politician that Ted Cruz is.
 

Sanders wishes he had Ted Hair.
Quote:Can you show me a system like this that currently works?
The one the allows for the most individual freedom. 
Quote:The one the allows for the most individual freedom. 
Name a country. 
Quote:Name a country. 

I'll bite..  Australia.  sure they don't have guns or quality internet but seems like they do pretty well in other areas including healthcare.
Quote:I'll bite.. Australia. sure they don't have guns or quality internet but seems like they do pretty well in other areas including healthcare.


Medicare, administered by the federal government, is the publicly funded universal health care system in Australia which was instituted in 1984. It coexists with a private health system. Medicare is funded partly by a 2% Medicare levy[1] (with exceptions for low-income earners), with the balance being provided by government from general revenue. An additional levy of 1% is imposed on high-income earners without private health insurance. As well as Medicare, there is a separate Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme also funded by the federal government which considerably subsidises a range of prescription medications.
Pages: 1 2 3 4