Obamacare
Quote: It costs a small fortune, covers almost nothing, and is subsidized by the government to such an extent that the subsidy pool has run dry well in advance of 2014.[/q
I bet you cannot provide a link that it costs a small fortune. I bet you cannot provide a link that the subsidy pool has run dry well in advance of 2014. I hate Obamacare. I hate the Affordable Care Act. However, I love you.
I am lying.
Love is for lovers.
Hate is for haters.
That does not rhyme.
/I'm editing my snarky reply with a link from above (https://www.pcip.gov/.) I work for the federal government and things are getting bad.
[rant]I won't comment on the insurance companies cruelness of denying those with 'preexisting conditions'. However, many on this forum feel that they will just have access to free care by abusing the county system and then declaring bankruptcy.... sounds like a nice way to live. I hope that you don't have a preexisting condition that prevents you from getting the health care / insurance that you need. What a backwards way to live a life. If you have bad luck in the United States or bad genes, quite simply, it's likely you're screwed, unless you're one of the lucky ones to have health insurance and enough money to pay the co-pays and co-premiums. [/end rant]
What I liked about the program was the 100% free preventative care that was provided, which I think is fantastic.
The problem with people with no insurance or insurance with a substantial co-pay is that people don't see their doctor for preventative care because of the cost involved.
When full-blown Obamacare comes into force into 2014, this program ends.
Quote: boymimboActually, the PCIP pool covers a need to cover those with Preexisting conditions that the insurance companies wouldn't cover. However, the government didn't expect that a very small percentage of users would be responsible for well over 1/2 the entire cost. Of course, you would expect that the system would be gamed by those who need it the most. There might be a number of people who with pre-existing conditions didn't pay the premium for the plan because the cost of insurance was still higher than the expected medical cost.
[rant]I won't comment on the insurance companies cruelness of denying those with 'preexisting conditions'. However, many on this forum feel that they will just have access to free care by abusing the county system and then declaring bankruptcy.... sounds like a nice way to live. I hope that you don't have a preexisting condition that prevents you from getting the health care / insurance that you need. What a backwards way to live a life. If you have bad luck in the United States or bad genes, quite simply, it's likely you're screwed, unless you're one of the lucky ones to have health insurance and enough money to pay the co-pays and co-premiums. [/end rant]
What I liked about the program was the 100% free preventative care that was provided, which I think is fantastic.
The problem with people with no insurance or insurance with a substantial co-pay is that people don't see their doctor for preventative care because of the cost involved.
When full-blown Obamacare comes into force into 2014, this program ends.
100% free care? How did they get free office space, free equipment, a d people to work for free?
I will hand it to Obama. He is about the best at giving away other people's money.
Quote: Gabes22Personally, I like my HSA. My company gives me quite a bit to start out with at the beginning of the year, and I put in a fixed amount per check. What my Insurance doesn't cover comes out of that account, which BTW earns an APR of 1.25%, which doesn't sound like much but it is 60 times what I get on my savings account. Personally, I would like insurance where LESS is covered. Routine checkups should be expected and thus shouldn't be covered, what you would pay out of pocket to them would pale in comparison to what the insurance company would charge you for that portion of your premium. Insurance should be for catastrophes. It should cover overnight stays, surgeries, emergency procedures etc. Could you imagine how sky high you auto insurance would be if you made a claim for every time you filled your tank or got your oil changed?
Ditto!
I would surmise that it's better to make that trip FREE to you as it would save the health care system tons of money (and lower premiums) by making prevention a key part of any health care strategy, especially to those who can't afford to see a doctor. For example, if you could lower the rate of diabetes (a mostly preventable disease) in the United States by 10%, you'd be saving 17.4 BILLION dollars (2007 statistics). That money saved, in turn, could go to reducing health insurance premiums. Go figure. The same would be said for Cancer, Heart disease, and a plethora of other preventable diseases that could be turned around in early diagnosis via preventable care.
Quote: Gabes22Personally, I like my HSA. My company gives me quite a bit to start out with at the beginning of the year, and I put in a fixed amount per check. What my Insurance doesn't cover comes out of that account, which BTW earns an APR of 1.25%, which doesn't sound like much but it is 60 times what I get on my savings account. Personally, I would like insurance where LESS is covered. Routine checkups should be expected and thus shouldn't be covered, what you would pay out of pocket to them would pale in comparison to what the insurance company would charge you for that portion of your premium. Insurance should be for catastrophes. It should cover overnight stays, surgeries, emergency procedures etc. Could you imagine how sky high you auto insurance would be if you made a claim for every time you filled your tank or got your oil changed?
I AM NOT ALONE!
wait,what?Quote: Gabes22But it is not FREE to me as I pay for that in my premium plus a little something extra for the insurance company. I would go to the doctor whether or not it was covered and I would prefer it wouldn't be at the $200-$300 I am able to afford out of pocket and don't need to line the pockets of the insurance company. Insurance should be for unexpected circumstances. A routine annual physical is not unexpected nor is it tragic, and thus if I have to have to pay for insurance to see the doctor for something I can pay for out of pocket, I am being ripped off.
Quote: Gabes22I don't want insurance to cover what I can pay out of pocket. If a routine checkup costs $200, if my insurance pays for it, that $200 isn't free, and likely much more than $200, because an insurance company will work with a formula such as (average claims + profit margin = premium) If I am on a policy that doesn't cover routine procedure I could expect to eliminate that cost and the assumed profit for the insurance company for that procedure. For instance, on my policy, I could save the cost of my checkup, my wife's checkup and and her OB/GYN visit, roughly between $600-$900 by your estimates, let's just call it $750. How much of my employer's $10,000 premium is simply to cover that expected $750 in claims. I submit it is a heck of a lot more that the $750 that I could pay out of pocket if this wasn't covered in the first place and my insurance covers what should be covered which are genuine emergencies.
Well, insurance is a tax on people who are bad at math.
That is taking it a bit far, but I understand exactly what you mean. It's the same reason I carry the state minimum mandated insurance on my car (just liability) - if I total it, I get nothing from the insurance company, but that's the risk I'm taking.
With health insurance, it's a bit different, since the amount of money to deal with a catastrophic emergency is life-changing. That is why I would like to have the same plan as Gabes22, and could probably actually get a decent disaster/hospital/emergency plan for cheap since I'm young and healthy.
We know that insurance companies don't cover everything either, and we've seen exposes on 60 minutes on denying claims for pre-existing conditions, even if they were border-line cases, as well as not covering many different procedures. Government run health insurance will have its exceptions too (and inclusions) that will piss some people off.
Here's the thing. As you get older, you get more costly to maintain. I live in a country where I don't pay out of pocket for health care and I've perhaps spent $2,000 on health care in the past 15 years. Now as I approach my mid-40s, there's stuff that's becoming wrong with me and lo and behold, my visits to the doctors gets more expensive. It's assumed that the young pay for the old in group insurance plans (just as non-smokers pay for smokers, and non-drinkers pay for drinkers, and so on).
America built Medicare as health care for the old because it was a realization that most elder Americans who are retired and on a fixed income cannot afford health insurance. The problem with pay-as-you-go is that catastrophic can happen to the young too. It could be a car accident or an accident at home. YYou could get AIDS, or leukimia. You could be diabetic, or have heart disease. You could become the victim of a random gunshot crime. It's far more unlikely, but you need that coverage for those reasons.
And while most Americans who make a decent living have a few hundred bucks saved up, there are 10s of millions (I would say up to 100 million) who can't afford to see a doctor on their own dime.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
Monyace = Russ Linbaugh.
2. Agreed.
3. Agreed, unless you borrow.
4. Agreed.
5. Tax rates for the richest Americans are at the lowest in 50 years, and America was doing fine when the marginal tax rates were 90%. Most very rich Americans pay a tax rate of 15%, which is ridiculously low, lower than most middle class Americans who are paying higher rates.
Some sense of social welfare is necessary for any nation to prosper.
Im not a very smart man Jenny..... but this has got to be one of the smartest things Ive ever read.Quote: montyace1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
Quote: boymimboWith government run health care, you get the 'minimal' bureaucracy because everyone uses the same system.
Something run by the government having less bureaucracy? You can't be serious.
Quote:1. You can legislate the poor to have shelter, food, and basic needs met by providing them with a decent wage for work and free (to them) health care and give them the basic security they need. This takes away the stress of hopelessness. Giving someone $200/month in food stamps is hardly welfare. Multiplying that by 50,000,000 and you have a serious problem on your hands. The solution isn't to end the SNAP program, but to enhance it and work seriously on bringing jobs back onto American soil.
No, you cannot. The poor will always be with us. Being poor in the USA gives you a standard of living better than 90%+ of the rest of the world. Too many poor in the USA spend more time figuring how to game the system than to train themselves to get that job that pays that decent wage.
Quote:5. Tax rates for the richest Americans are at the lowest in 50 years, and America was doing fine when the marginal tax rates were 90%. Most very rich Americans pay a tax rate of 15%, which is ridiculously low, lower than most middle class Americans who are paying higher rates.
Rates are lower than before-SO FREAKING WHAT?! You act as if by only paying 40-50% they are still somehow not paying enough. The only fair system is a flat tax for one and all, and that rate should be just 10%. Time to end all this greed from people who want what "the rich" have just because they have it.
I keep asking this, HOW MUCH DO *YOU* WANT TO PAY? You should not ask anyone to pay more than you are willing to.
Quote:Some sense of social welfare is necessary for any nation to prosper.
We have plenty and more than enough social welfare in the USA. Social welfare is to provide for those truly unable to help themselves, it is not to give a standard of living to people who refuse to work.
Quote: AZDuffmanSomething run by the government having less bureaucracy? You can't be serious.
No, you cannot. The poor will always be with us. Being poor in the USA gives you a standard of living better than 90%+ of the rest of the world. Too many poor in the USA spend more time figuring how to game the system than to train themselves to get that job that pays that decent wage.
Rates are lower than before-SO FREAKING WHAT?! You act as if by only paying 40-50% they are still somehow not paying enough. The only fair system is a flat tax for one and all, and that rate should be just 10%. Time to end all this greed from people who want what "the rich" have just because they have it. +1.... I know some who work harder at bucking the system than they would at a job somewhere.
I keep asking this, HOW MUCH DO *YOU* WANT TO PAY? You should not ask anyone to pay more than you are willing to.
We have plenty and more than enough social welfare in the USA. Social welfare is to provide for those truly unable to help themselves, it is not to give a standard of living to people who refuse to work.
Quote: mdhI meant to say +1... I know some people that work harder at bucking the system than they would at a job.
If you want to see this in action take a job at a tax prep office. People that cannot balance a checkbook know to the dollar how to maximize their EIC, and if they actually worked too much they have a cow.
Come out of college at 27, take an entry level job while trying to pay your $100K in loans back and decide you can do without insurance? Sorry but you pay a Penalty for listening to that liberal professor on how you are "privileged" for being white and middle classed.
Quote: AZDuffmanSomething run by the government having less bureaucracy? You can't be serious.
That must be why the I.R.S. is adding 60,000 agents.
.
And yeah, I've been on the inside of both life and health insurance companies and what you see in those places is a great deal of bureaucracy and a great deal of inefficiency caused by an inability to change.
--
Having a view of "the poor will always be with us" is just lazy. Look at what other countries do with their poor and how they are taken care of. Many people in the United States, millions of them, are poor because of medical bankruptcy. For those that work full time even in a menial job, they should be able to afford their own food and shelter based on that minimum wage. If you work less, then yeah, you're responsible for your own plight. The issue with the minimum wage job vs welfare is that the standard of living for being on welfare is too close to that working full time. So, if you had the choice to sit at home and have the government pay you $200 a week or work for 40 hours a week and make $240, what would you do? The solution is to make employment, even minimum wage employment much more desirable then sitting at home.
---
I'm thinking that a 15% tax rate on the very rich is very low while the effective tax rate of 25 - 28% on middle to upper income earners is probably fair. Progressive taxes work everywhere. Governments use the tax systems to take more from the rich and to take very little from the poor and I have no problem with that. And the answer to "how much do *you* want to pay" is always going to be ZERO. Balancing the budget in the United States is going to take some serious cost cutting measures and some serious revenue raising measures. That means less government spending AND less taxes.
Quote: boymimbo
1 ... Most very rich Americans pay a tax rate of 15%, which is ridiculously low, lower than most middle class Americans who are paying higher rates.
2.... Some sense of social welfare is necessary for any nation to prosper.
1. All should pay the same tax on earnings ... if I earn 100k a year and I pay 30% then so should the millionaires and billionaires... But and it’s a big but... those millionaires and billionaires don’t earn salaries like we do (or they pay tax on it ...) they make their huge amounts on investment returns... and that’s different...
2. I agree with the principle... But social welfare should never be given out without conditions and preconditions... ( which it has ) Pick up garbage... help out at a center... do something for that money... No one should ever be homeless or hungry but the only way you can get people off the welfare is to make it too hard to be on it... In the UK its ridiculous … you don’t need to work because all your basic needs are met... this is the problem... But I agree that it must be there...
Quote: boymimboThe issue with the minimum wage job vs welfare is that the standard of living for being on welfare is too close to that working full time. So, if you had the choice to sit at home and have the government pay you $200 a week or work for 40 hours a week and make $240, what would you do? The solution is to make employment, even minimum wage employment much more desirable then sitting at home.
I agree here. Since you cannot legislate minimum wage to some kind of "livable" level (minimum wage was never supposed to be a "living wage") the answer is to keep welfare payments to a low level and cut people off after two years on the dole, just like the Gingrich-Clinton reform did successfully.
I repeat that if all you qualify for is a minimum wage job then you should not be starting a family, you should be living with as many roommates as you can to keep costs down while you learn a trade. Most people do this in high school so not a big deal. There are plenty of trades you can learn in a short time to get yourself off minimum wage, trucking and welding to name just two.
In the words of Mister Pink, "Learn to type, because if you are expecting me to pay your bills you are in for a big *$%* surprise."
Quote: AZDuffmanThere are plenty of trades you can learn in a short time to get yourself off minimum wage, trucking and welding to name just two.
Plumbers, electricians, mechanics and HVAC technicians, among others, are charging close to $100 an hour these days. And they can be their own boss. Of course, preparation and real work are required, so that would probably disqualify a huge number of the "takers."
Quote: SanchoPanzaPlumbers, electricians, mechanics and HVAC technicians, among others, are charging close to $100 an hour these days. And they can be their own boss. Of course, preparation and real work are required, so that would probably disqualify a huge number of the "takers."
The takers think people with those jobs just got lucky. Here is an example I just heard.
Guy went to take the electrician apprentice aptitude test that the local hiring hall union runs. It isn't a hard test but if you do not prepare you will not pass. (Has things like ohms law on it.). So this guy thinks he will just walk in and take it. Thinks tradesmen are stupid lumps. He fails. Now he has to wait two years to try again.
But it isn't his fault of course. Reagan and both Bushes sent all the jobs overseas or something.
Quote: AZDuffmanThinks tradesmen are stupid lumps.
That's just schtick for the good ones. Helps them lower expectations and leads customers to believe that the services are not too highly priced. After all, those guys can't exactly work in black tie. And that comes from a career white-collar professional.
Quote: SanchoPanzaThat's just schtick for the good ones. Helps them lower expectations and leads customers to believe that the services are not too highly priced. After all, those guys can't exactly work in black tie. And that comes from a career white-collar professional.
There is often much to gain by letting the other by think you are not as sharp as you are so I can see that. The lazy image do e put out I don't get as much. But I suggest to any young person out there to consider a trade before college unless they know what they want for a major and career. 45% or so of people in college really do not belong there.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/
Isn't Obamacare's real name the Affordable Healthcare act? Which
part is affordable, when will they present that. Even the unions are
screaming bloody murder, nothing is as Obama said it would be.
They're so shocked...
Whats this if not a death panel. This little girl gets to die
because of a regulation.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/kathleen-sebelius-childs-lung-transplant-92237.html
Quote: Sabretom2Sorry kid, Regs is Regs.
As Sebelious said, some people live, some people die.
Thems the breaks when you have death panels. Or
concentration camps. Or gulags.
Quote: EvenBobRemember Sarah Palin and the death panel prediction?
Whats this if not a death panel. This little girl gets to die
because of a regulation.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/kathleen-sebelius-childs-lung-transplant-92237.html
Bob, do you happen to know when the lung transplantation regulations were written?
This is the change we got folks!!! I don't know about you but I'm not happy with it.
Quote: CS94Bob, do you happen to know when the lung transplantation regulations were written?
1877? Not the point. Its that the evil witch won't make
an exception, which has been made in the past. She
actually said 'some people live and some people die',
like she's god.
Quote: EvenBob1877? Not the point. Its that the evil witch won't make
an exception, which has been made in the past. She
actually said 'some people live and some people die',
like she's god.
Quote:Sebelius said putting Sarah next in line would disadvantage other young people who have also been waiting for transplants — including three in the same area. Helping one child could possibly hurt another
So, she makes one exception, and these other kids should expect favors.
That's interesting, as the number of donor organs is limited not by Obamacare, but by willing donors. Give up a lung EB. Do the right thing.
Quote: rxwineSo, she makes one exception, and these other kids should expect favors.
Uh oh, can't have that.
'A federal judge has ordered Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to allow Sarah Murnaghan, a 10-year-old in Pennsylvania dying of cystic fibrosis, to be moved to the adult lung transplant list.'
Thank god. Just a taste of things to come. Wait till
your dad or grandad wants something and gets
moved to the death list. Oh well, they'll say, some
people live and some people die. Shrug. Next in
line, please.
Quote: EvenBobUh oh, can't have that.
'A federal judge has ordered Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to allow Sarah Murnaghan, a 10-year-old in Pennsylvania dying of cystic fibrosis, to be moved to the adult lung transplant list.'
Thank god. Just a taste of things to come. Wait till
your dad or grandad wants something and gets
moved to the death list. Oh well, they'll say, some
people live and some people die. Shrug. Next in
line, please.
There's been rules for transplant candidates all along. Well before Obamacare.
Quote: rxwineThere's been rules for transplant candidates all along. Well before Obamacare.
Are you trying to 'not get it' on purpose?
Quote: EvenBobAre you trying to 'not get it' on purpose?
I get that you want to make this about Obamacare when it's not.
But if you can find a donor (donor family) willing to personally single out someone to benefit, that's perfectly acceptable.
Quote: Mikey75I'm not normally real big on politics and usually don't get involved with these discussions. This is a very very touchy subject for me. I work a part time job in addition to my regular job to just barely squeak by. I find out that starting the first of this month my hours on my part time job will be cut because I am not taking out insurance through this job. I'm losing 8 hours a week from my part time job because of Obama Care. Also come tax time if you do not have medical insurance you will be charged $2500 on your taxes.
This is the change we got folks!!! I don't know about you but I'm not happy with it.
Those of us on the right tried to warn everybody. We said that you cannot raise the cost of something (labor) and expect the consumer (employers) not to change their behavior. We said there would be layoffs. We were told we were greedy and uncaring, then shouted down.
We warned about government control, now look at the IRS abuse of power.
How many more times do we need to warn about where this guy is taking the USA?
Quote: rxwineI get that you want to make this about Obamacare when it's not.
Of COURSE its about Obamacare. Bush was in office
for 8 years, do you remember even once where this
kind of thing happened? Why do you think the Evil
Queen of Obamacare was involved in this. Nothing
better to do? Its the rules, and the rules must be
followed, because Obamacare is coming and death
panels are coming, so you better get used to it. Some
people live and some people die.
We get it loud and clear, Frau Sebelius. Make your
report directly to Dr Mengele..
Quote:Rush Limbaugh rehashed the widely debunked myth that President Obama's Affordable Care Act will result in death panels to smear Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, claiming that "Obamacare establishes death panels and right now Sebelius is it."
Limbaugh used the case of Sarah Murnaghan, a 10-year-old girl awaiting a lung transplant, as evidence that "The government's making the decision who lives and dies. That's what Obamacare is." Later, Limbaugh responded to a caller, saying, "Yes Virginia, there are death panels."
Despite Limbaugh's accusation, Politico reported that the Murnaghan case is not tied to the Affordable Care Act. According to Politico, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network sets policy for transplants, not Sebelius, and Republicans, not the Affordable Care Act, are pressuring Sebelius to intervene.
Limbaugh has repeatedly warned that mythical "death panels" are contained within the Affordable Care Act, even though his claims have been debunked.
here
