Obamacare
Quote: RonCYou can buy a low-information voter because he has no idea that there is a whole world out there of success without government handouts.
Free health care is very affordable...for the ones getting it. It costs taxpayers a lot.
I disagree with the term 'low information voter' as used here. If I have just received free or nearly free health insurance as a result of Obamacare, and of course others will be paying for it, when it is my turn to vote I will have all the information I need to select who to vote for.... I will vote for the person stealing from Peter to pay Paul, because I AM PAUL! The 47% problem that Mitt referenced will exceed 50% by the next presidential election!
Of course this increases the "Democrat base", as those getting something for free from the government are overwhelmingly Democrats.
Always remember this, if only people with jobs were allowed to vote, there would be NO Democrat officeholders.....
Quote: RonCThey are cooking the books and the people they are telling us have signed up (taking credit for) are non-payers. Sure, more people are signing up for SOMETHING but it is the Medicaid expansion in states that is driving the numbers. It isn't the healthy 20-30 year old that Obamacare needs to fund it at all.
Estimates are that at least 40% of enrollees need to be young and healthy for it to work. Young and healthy portion is currently 24%.
Is it safe to say that we can accurately predict yet another campaign blitz on the younger crowd?
Quote: rob45Estimates are that at least 40% of enrollees need to be young and healthy for it to work. Young and healthy portion is currently 24%.
Is it safe to say that we can accurately predict yet another campaign blitz on the younger crowd?
That is your opinion (and mine!). But it will still 'work' if 0% of the sign ups are young and healthy... Just the deficit will go up exponentially.... but I assure you s2 will say it is working.....
Quote: SOOPOOI disagree with the term 'low information voter' as used here. If I have just received free or nearly free health insurance as a result of Obamacare, and of course others will be paying for it, when it is my turn to vote I will have all the information I need to select who to vote for.... I will vote for the person stealing from Peter to pay Paul, because I AM PAUL! The 47% problem that Mitt referenced will exceed 50% by the next presidential election!
Of course this increases the "Democrat base", as those getting something for free from the government are overwhelmingly Democrats.
Always remember this, if only people with jobs were allowed to vote, there would be NO Democrat officeholders.....
I don't see that as a disagreement at all--low-information voters are the same as the idiots who are one issue voters...they are both only worrying about one thing while they should be concerned about a myriad of things in order to be informed and make their vote worthwhile. They aren't concerned about paying more in taxes because they don't know anything beyond the next handout from the government...their one issue is "How much can I get for nothing?"...
+1Quote: SOOPOOAlways remember this, if only people with jobs were allowed to vote, there would be NO Democrat officeholders.....
Quote: s2dbakerI love all the pearl clutching. Keep it up guys :)
I thought you'd rather clutch something else. lol
Quote: SOOPOOAlways remember this, if only people with jobs were allowed to vote, there would be NO Democrat officeholders.....
Ahh, gods and clods...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenpox_%28South_Park%29
Disenfranchising voters is always a good choice when they have different priorities than us
Quote: Beethoven9th^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I thought you'd rather clutch something else. lol
The s2dbaker-Beethoven9th battle is not going away soon. They are digging in for the long haul. The Obamacare thread rivals the old dice control threads.
Quote: treetopbuddyThe s2dbaker-Beethoven9th battle is not going away soon. They are digging in for the long haul. The Obamacare thread rivals the old dice control threads.
So how would you rate this thread as compared to some of the baccarat threads?
Quote: rob45So how would you rate this thread as compared to some of the baccarat threads?
Right, forgot about Bac threads......gr8player against the world.
long wait times and inferior care that plagues their
centralized health system."
This can't be right, Canada is a healthcare Utopia
and all Canadians are thrilled to have it.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/16/report-tens-of-thousands-fled-socialized-canadian-medicine-in-2013/#ixzz2qgUr6s00
Quote: BizzyBI just wanted to say that listening to the ignorance of many people in the world, like some the things said here, made me take the polar opposite position and look at the positives (which exist) rather than my usual indifferent opinion, and decide that Obamacare was probably overall a good thing. But I have decided it sux for the time being. As I am sure to hear more and more nonsense, I imagine I will be forced to reverse my opinion at some point, to not be on the side of crazy. You don't hear anybody on the other side exxagerating about how awesome it is, and I prefer to be far away from crazy claims. But it is a pretty bad law, sold with lies, so I'm gonna flip-flop to the moderate side of crazy for a little bit. So to all those who dislike Obamacare, use sensible arguments to stop from creating opposition to your extreme viewpoints. More people will agree with you, or at least in my case, remain indifferent. This is bad enough where you can remain calm, and let it speak for itself. Or maybe I'm wrong...maybe democrats remain calm, and republicans go crazy and that's a truism for all issues. I never paid much attention before the last few years.
My Opinion:
I don't like the law. I think it is poorly written and is being executed even more poorly. I think it is going to create a huge unfunded liability for Americans to pay. I don't think we will get what are going to pay for.
"Sensible Arguments"--tough one. My sensible argument may not seem so to others; and vice versa.
--Laws passed in the dark, effective years later and passed as "emergencies" in less than the "transparency time" the President promised, written hastily, and coming with statements like "we have to pass the bill to find out what is in the bill" (not an exact quote of Pelosi, but close) are likely to be flawed.
--Picking and choosing groups to exclude from having to obey the law as written are showing favoritism, politics, or whatever and are also probably illegal at worst; wrong at best.
--The President lied. More than once.
--The first test, a website, is way behind and no one even knows how many people have actually enrolled and paid.
--Medicaid costs will skyrocket as the majority of people signing up may be going on Medicaid and not really getting in the paying pool of people.
--Young people needed to fund the program as, we were told it would be funded, are not signing up in the numbers necessary to keep any of the cost estimates by the administration "true"...did they know that would happen, suspect it, or were they just wrong?
--Healthcare costs are going up for many people and down for many fewer, based on those who actually had paid insurance. There are many more examples of prices and deductibles going up than the opposite.
--Doctors are leaving practice or changing to a model that allows them to see patients outside of Obamacare.
--There are not enough providers (Doctors and Mid-Level Providers) to see all the new patients. Being a doctor looks like it is becoming less attractive as payment rates are dropped lower; what incentive will there be for the "best and brightest" to take up the profession?
--The President is totally unwilling to come to the table and work on fixing any of the issues in any kind of compromise.
...to name a few sensible reason/arguments for opposing this program as written.
Quote: treetopbuddyRight, forgot about Bac threads......gr8player against the world.Quote: rob45So how would you rate this thread as compared to some of the baccarat threads?
That's certainly one opinion.
A broader, more accurate perspective would be to view it as one side stating that the game can be beaten with no proof of a mathematical advantage, with the other side asking for a mathematical foundation as proof of a working concept.
A similar concept exists in this healthcare thread.
Quote: steeldcoBizzyB, nicely written. I'd like to just add that, in my case, there are a lot of things that I know, that I don't know. There are just as many things that I don't know, that I don't know. However, there are a few things that I do know and one of them is that anyone who claims that they know how Obamacare is going to shake out, good or bad, is frankly a little light on intelligence. Just my opinion.
I get it, but I think most everyone here understands that each side's claim to how Obamacare is going to turn out is really a prediction as opposed to anyone really claiming they know for sure how it will turn out. One side thinks Americans will be worse off and would like to see things changed, the other thinks that they will be better off and thinks the program will work. People are passionate, but I have even said, somewhere along the way, that I would be okay with being wrong--that is, with Obamacare working as well--or better--than planned.
I can't see that happening now, but it could...I could be wrong...
Quote: RonCI get it, but I think most everyone here understands that each side's claim to how Obamacare is going to turn out is really a prediction as opposed to anyone really claiming they know for sure how it will turn out. One side thinks Americans will be worse off and would like to see things changed, the other thinks that they will be better off and thinks the program will work. People are passionate, but I have even said, somewhere along the way, that I would be okay with being wrong--that is, with Obamacare working as well--or better--than planned.
I can't see that happening now, but it could...I could be wrong...
RonC, thanks for a reasonable response. I would like to add that passion is terribly misused. Terrorists are passionate. They believe that they know what is best for everyone else. Why should the posters here be passionate about something that really is unknown? We are to believe that they know what is best for the majority? Again, that applies to both sides of the debate.
Because when the foundation of one-sixth of a giant economy like that of the U.S. is turned upside-down without virtually any of the details known, the possibility of all sorts of unpredictable and unforeseen ramifications radically distorts the operations of orderly functions, as we have witnessed for the last five years.Quote: steeldcoWhy should the posters here be passionate about something that really is unknown? We are to believe that they know what is best for the majority?
Quote: EvenBobIn 2013, nearly 42,000 Canucks left their homeland to avoid long wait times and inferior care that plagues their centralized health system.
42,000 out of a population of 35 million? That's pretty good. 1,000,000 Americans flee the United States every year for medical care too. Meh. Health care is so expensive in the States that insurance companies are paying bonuses to Americans who choose to go to another country for operations. Free market at work.
Long wait times in Canada suck, indeed they do.
Quote: steeldcoI would like to add that passion is terribly misused. Terrorists are passionate.
Being passionate can be misused but it is also a great driving force for keeping people interested in the process.
My brother and his partner were out posting signs for Obama in the middle of the night; I applauded their passion but disagreed passionately with their Liberal positions.
We'd be nowhere without passion...even if, used for evil, it can be bad...
Quote: steeldcoRonC, thanks for a reasonable response. I would like to add that passion is terribly misused. Terrorists are passionate. They believe that they know what is best for everyone else. Why should the posters here be passionate about something that really is unknown? We are to believe that they know what is best for the majority? Again, that applies to both sides of the debate.
Some things are known. Millions of more Americans now have access to health care as they can afford for and pay for insurance, to the expense of other Americans via taxes, more debt, and increased fees to the insurance companies. Obamacare didn't do anything about the price of delivery and very little to increase competition.
Don't kid yourself. Healthcare is not a free market in the United States, and less so after ObamaCare.
Because people with pre-existing conditions were being left out. For example, a person who had a heart murmur as a child could not get health insurance. Insurance companies were revoking policies of the people who did get too sick. People were going bankrupt because they got sick. Healthcare is a thing that we all need, not a thing that we all want. Government should provide the minimum of that which we all need and leave the rest to the free market. When people are at risk, there's passion to fix the problem.Quote: steeldcoWhy should the posters here be passionate about something that really is unknown? We are to believe that they know what is best for the majority? Again, that applies to both sides of the debate.
Actually, that statistic is completely made up. If you look at the methodology of the "study" they asked doctors how many of their patients that they think went abroad for non-emergency care and the response was 1%. Even if the statistical margin of error was +-3%, there's a pretty good chance that the actual number is ZERO!Quote: boymimbo42,000 out of a population of 35 million? That's pretty good. 1,000,000 Americans flee the United States every year for medical care too. Meh. Health care is so expensive in the States that insurance companies are paying bonuses to Americans who choose to go to another country for operations. Free market at work.
Long wait times in Canada suck, indeed they do.
Quote: RonCBeing passionate can be misused but it is also a great driving force for keeping people interested in the process....
I have to disagree. I'm not passionate on this Obamacare issue. I am interested however.
Quote: RonCMy brother and his partner were out posting signs for Obama in the middle of the night; I applauded their passion but disagreed passionately with their Liberal positions....
OK. I can understand that.
Quote: RonCWe'd be nowhere without passion...even if, used for evil, it can be bad...
I have to somewhat disagree in that being passionate, to me, would mean that I find it highly probable that I am on the right side. That I have something to truly be passionate about.
Quote: s2dbakerActually, that statistic is completely made up. If you look at the methodology of the "study" they asked doctors how many of their patients that they think went abroad for non-emergency care and the response was 1%. Even if the statistical margin of error was +-3%, there's a pretty good chance that the actual number is ZERO![/q
Not sure this is relevant to any point here or not. There is a steady stream of people this time of year that walk across into Mexico for services such as dental, eyeglasses and to purchase as many of their yearly medications [made in America] as they are allowed to carry back.
The Mexican dentists even advertise in our local paper. The price can be one quarter of prices here in Az. A bit risky, but what isn't?
Quote: boymimbo42,000 out of a population of 35 million? That's pretty good. 1,000,000 Americans flee the United States every year for medical care too. Meh. Health care is so expensive in the States that insurance companies are paying bonuses to Americans who choose to go to another country for operations. Free market at work.
There is a huge difference, though. The Americans are "fleeing" to save money. If the insurance company wants to pay me a bonus to get my care overseas and I am fine with that good for both of us. It is no different than why I bought a foreign car because the domestics did not make what I wanted at the price I wanted. This is a free market at work.
OTOH the Canadians flee because they are denied care under the Canadian system. Socialized medicine at work.
Quote:Long wait times in Canada suck, indeed they do.
As more and more medicine in the USA gets socialized because LIVs think it is "free" Canadian wait times will seem short.
Actually, they have to wait on line for their boob jobs. Emergency and critical care are first priority in Canada.Quote: AZDuffmanOTOH the Canadians flee because they are denied care under the Canadian system. Socialized medicine at work.
Most recently, an Ontario study (Passalent et al. 2009) indicates that (a) wait times for community PT were longer than OT wait times, with the median wait time for OT and PT being 12.5 and 35 days, respectively; (b) maximum wait times for PT are more than twice as long compared to maximum wait times for OT (114 days waiting for PT compared to a maximum of 63 days waiting for OT); and (c) over 10,000 people reported waiting for OT or PT services across Ontario.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2875898/
My mother-in-law has used the "T" services (both kinds) a number of times--there has never been a waiting period of longer than the weekend to get started.
I don't want Canada's systems, thanks...
.Quote: s2dbakerActually, they have to wait on line for their boob jobs. Emergency and critical care are first priority in Canada.
So you still have to wait in most cases then due to shortages of MRIs and other care. I'll keep the system in the USA, thank you very much. Wait time is minimal for most things. Of course you have people making a profit ***shudder*** but if you are a socialist there is always the free clinic.
wrist and got one 2 days later last year. She
needed to see a specialist and got in the same
week. If I need to see my doctor, 99% of the
time he can see me TODAY. If that system
is 'broken', as all the libs keep claiming, you
have to ask what the hell are they talking
about.
Quote: EvenBobAll I know is my wife needed an MRI on her
wrist and got one 2 days later last year. She
needed to see a specialist and got in the same
week. If I need to see my doctor, 99% of the
time he can see me TODAY. If that system
is 'broken', as all the libs keep claiming, you
have to ask what the hell are they talking
about.
They mean they have to pay for things directly. Liberals never like to pay for things and often can't understand that they are supposed to. Remember when Hillary stiffed the waitress in Albion IIRC? Never carried cash, just assumed it was taken care of.
To his credit Bill O. on FNC said Bill Clinton always kept some WAM on-hand so this didn't happen. But liberals are "short cash" all the time. A huge complaint among staffers at NBC is celebs come in for The Tonight Show and have no cash for the commissary so they have to borrow it, and often do not pay back the poor kid making $9/hr who fronted it for them.
Put it this way. If the insurance company is telling you that you won't have to pay anything for going overseas vs paying $5,000 for staying, and you don't have $5,000, you're fleeing the country to get service that you wouldn't get otherwise.
Canadians are not denied care. They are delayed care for things that are not life threatening.
Quote: boymimboCanadians are not denied care. They are delayed care for things that are not life threatening.
Why would we want to adopt a plan that could lead to waiting when we currently don't have to do so?
Waiting on non-life threatening issues can lead to them getting worse...
I am sure that Obamacare will put the USA in the same position in a few years without drastic changes.
Quote: kenarmanObamacare is covering drugs.
Uh...
No, You Can't Keep Your Drugs Either Under Obamacare
The President famously promised that you could keep your health plan and doctor. For many people, both of those pledges are turning out to be false. And now, you might not be able to keep your medicine, either.
There are two reasons why. The first has to do with the higher out of pocket costs patients will face. The second issue may be even more significant.
Simply put, many drugs may not be covered at all, and the costs patients incur by buying them with cash won’t count against out of pocket caps. This has repercussions for drug makers with big portfolios of specialty and primary care drugs (more on that later). But most of all, it has implications for patients.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/2013/12/09/no-you-cant-keep-your-drugs-either-under-obamacare/
Quote: boymimbo
Put it this way. If the insurance company is telling you that you won't have to pay anything for going overseas vs paying $5,000 for staying, and you don't have $5,000, you're fleeing the country to get service that you wouldn't get otherwise.
Perhaps for a small part of the population, but many people will say it is worth saving $5,000.
Quote:Canadians are not denied care. They are delayed care for things that are not life threatening.
"I blew out my knee, I need an MRI."
"You are not dying, come back in 6 months."
"But I am in real pain!"
"Sorry."
And that is not being denied care?
Quote: AZDuffman
"I blew out my knee, I need an MRI."
"You are not dying, come back in 6 months."
"But I am in real pain!"
"Sorry."
That's exactly what happens there. My brother in
law in CA was in terrible hip pain from arthritis, and he
had to wait 6 months for the first hip replacement
and 2 years for the 2nd one. In the US he would
have gotten them immediately. Yet our system
is 'broken', they say. It's ludicrous.
Quote: EvenBobThat's exactly what happens there. My brother in
law in CA was in terrible hip pain from arthritis, and he
had to wait 6 months for the first hip replacement
and 2 years for the 2nd one. In the US he would
have gotten them immediately. Yet our system
is 'broken', they say. It's ludicrous.
Why anybody wants the government making their health care choices amazes me. Why do people want another set of laws restricting their freedoms?
Quote: AZDuffmanPerhaps for a small part of the population, but many people will say it is worth saving $5,000.
"I blew out my knee, I need an MRI."
"You are not dying, come back in 6 months."
"But I am in real pain!"
"Sorry."
And that is not being denied care?
According to the even conservative think tank the Fraser Institute, the average wait time for an MRI in Canada has fallen from 9.8 weeks in 2010 to 8.4 weeks in 2012. So it isn't 6 months. But doctors think that that wait time is probably three weeks too long nationwide for all treatments, and it is especially bad for orthapaedic care.
Your argument is a bit facetious. Are you being denied care on a Sunday if your doctor's office is closed? The difference i guess in the United States is that if you actually do have a choice, there are a myriad of choices (if you have unlimited money) of getting that choice fulfilled. You can pay if your insurance company doesn't want to (and up to a year ago, if you had pre-existing conditions, you weren't covered anyway).
So, if you have a pre-existing condition, and the insurance company denies you coverage, are you being denied service? By your definition, absolutely you are. I guess you would have to admit, then, under your argument, that ObamaCare did a good thing by not allowing insurance companies to deny people services based on pre-existing conditions.
Canadians have that same choice. 90% of Canadians live within an hour's drive to the border, where there are doctors and hospitals waiting for them. If the treatment is not available to them, or they have to wait, they can elect to pay and go over the border, or like many hundreds of thousands of Americans, they can go elsewhere.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhy anybody wants the government making their health care choices amazes me. Why do people want another set of laws restricting their freedoms?
I would much rather have the government make health choices over an insurance company. What amazes me is that you think there is a free market for health care when clearly there is not. If you live in New Haven, Connecticut, you have one choice for all of health care. If you live in Alabama, there is ONE insurance provider.
Quote: boymimboI would much rather have the government make health choices over an insurance company. What amazes me is that you think there is a free market for health care when clearly there is not. If you live in New Haven, Connecticut, you have one choice for all of health care. If you live in Alabama, there is ONE insurance provider.
Why would we not push a better free market solution rather than the replacement of the previously bad enough system (as you mention here, but not impacting everyone in the country) with what looks to be a worse one?
Quote: boymimboCanadians have that same choice. 90% of Canadians live within an hour's drive to the border, where there are doctors and hospitals waiting for them. If the treatment is not available to them, or they have to wait, they can elect to pay and go over the border, or like many hundreds of thousands of Americans, they can go elsewhere.
They have that choice for now. When the option to pay for service quickly diminishes as our system becomes more and more like the Canadian one, where will they go? The border option will be gone, so they will all have to go overseas.
Quote: boymimboAccording to the even conservative think tank the Fraser Institute, the average wait time for an MRI in Canada has fallen from 9.8 weeks in 2010 to 8.4 weeks in 2012. So it isn't 6 months. But doctors think that that wait time is probably three weeks too long nationwide for all treatments, and it is especially bad for orthapaedic care.
And in the USA it is at most a matter of days, not weeks. If I blow out my knee I do not want to be waiting even 2-3 months for an MRI.
Quote:So, if you have a pre-existing condition, and the insurance company denies you coverage, are you being denied service?
No, you are being denied INSURANCE. You can still pay out of pocket if you choose. In Canada you have no choice, you get to be laid up and miss work because it is 8.4-9.8 weeks to even get the MRI.
Quote:Canadians have that same choice. 90% of Canadians live within an hour's drive to the border, where there are doctors and hospitals waiting for them. If the treatment is not available to them, or they have to wait, they can elect to pay and go over the border, or like many hundreds of thousands of Americans, they can go elsewhere.
So you are indeed saying Canadians go to the USA when they need care the great Canadian system does not provide?
Actually, if you are hurt at work, you are covered by the various worker's compensation programs in each province and are able to be seen right away. The same is true for anyone in the military and police. There are even private insurance companies offering supplementary insurance to individuals who want "third party" service which enable you to jump the queue and get "third party" service.
Most Canadians abhor the idea of private medicine. They would rather more operating rooms and diagnostic equipment to reduce wait times and think that private medicine takes away from the quality of public medicine.
Quote: boymimboYou get on an MRI based on priority. If you blow out your knee, you likely get scheduled in right away, perhaps even in the hospital.
Actually, if you are hurt at work, you are covered by the various worker's compensation programs in each province and are able to be seen right away. The same is true for anyone in the military and police. There are even private insurance companies offering supplementary insurance to individuals who want "third party" service which enable you to jump the queue and get "third party" service.
So basically you mean you get care quicker if you are the "right" person with the "right" needs? And you need to pay more otherwise?
Here in the USA you pay once and get in fast. I'll take our system.
Quote:Most Canadians abhor the idea of private medicine. They would rather more operating rooms and diagnostic equipment to reduce wait times and think that private medicine takes away from the quality of public medicine.
Sounds like they have been brainwashed pretty good, kind of like the Soviets were by the 1980s. But as soon as a McDonald's opened in Moscow all of the sudden they saw how bad their lives really were. My guess is if you took a Canadian going on month two of a wait for an MRI and she met an American who not only had the MRI but was well on the way to recovery she would be willing to get the government out of health care and let private industry run it as should be the case in a free society.
When your dog can get care a month faster than you can something is terribly wrong with the system.
