Obamacare
They did get it right the first time.Quote: AZDuffmanWhy didn't they just get it right the first time?
Quote: s2dbakerThey did get it right the first time.
That's what the captain of the Titanic kept
telling everybody as the ship went down. LOL
Quote: s2dbakerWhen it becomes evident that Obamacare is hugely flawed, liberals will change it to make it better.
Quote: s2dbakerThey did get it right the first time.
Which one is it?
Quote: RonCWhich one is it?
What day is it? He says whatever is convenient.
For example, "When my house needs a new roof, I will get one". Doesn't mean I will ever get one.
Both. That day will likely never come and if it does, we'll fix it.Quote: RonCWhich one is it?
So you were on the Titanic and overheard this or perhaps it's recorded somewhere? Do you have any proof that the Captain of the Titanic said this? If you do, I'd be interested to read the context and also try to figure out what the heck you're talking about.Quote: EvenBobThat's what the captain of the Titanic kept
telling everybody as the ship went down. LOL
Obamacare care does away with the "exchange plans" prhibiting coverage for any reason. Everyone can get healthcare now.
How does this reduce the cost of healthcare to the general public WHO HAD INSURANCE BEFORE....or does it just reduce the cost ofhealthcare to the people who didnt have insurance before.
You see the bill of goods people bought was that they could keep their insurance, they could keep their doctors, and that they would see a reduction in costs.
So we know for a fact that the promise of keeping your insurance and doctors was a lie in the first month of obamacare.
But under what mechanism are costs to decrease for us policy holders...what is going to drive down the costs?
Quote: s2dbakerWhen it becomes evident that Obamacare is hugely flawed, liberals will change it to make it better.
Quote: s2dbakerBoth. That day will likely never come and if it does, we'll fix it.
But you said *WHEN* it becomes evident. Not *IF* it becomes evident.
Words mean things. As do actions.
Quote: AZDuffmanBut you said *WHEN* it becomes evident. Not *IF* it becomes evident.
Words mean things. As do actions.
If it isn't evident to him or other supporters yet that the program is flawed and needs fixed or replaced, they'll figure it out about the next time we see the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It doesn't take too much to figure out that the delays in implementation and the low enrollment figures are a problem. They'll just dig their heads in the sand and take as little responsibility as possible through the election cycle. They may be in the mood to admit flaws and work on it after that...but time will be limited, because we will be right into the next election cycle.
Quote: RonCIf it isn't evident to him or other supporters yet that the program is flawed and needs fixed or replaced, they'll figure it out about the next time we see the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It doesn't take too much to figure out that the delays in implementation and the low enrollment figures are a problem. They'll just dig their heads in the sand and take as little responsibility as possible through the election cycle. They may be in the mood to admit flaws and work on it after that...but time will be limited, because we will be right into the next election cycle.
That darned Constitution gets in their way every time. Who was that female Democrat who suggested we just suspend elections so they could legislate without fear of losing their office?
Quote: LarrySI am not familiar withthe specifics of the healthcare provided like you do.
However if you are happy to have your benefits reduced. Your healthcare taken away, or your wife's paid vacation taken away, or your daughter's paid holidays taken away......and the answer will be that you are tired of paying for it as a consumer....then you are rather heartless.Quote:
Unlike you, I understand that there are few entitlements (maybe you're actually a closet liberal?) If someone loses a benefit at their place of employment then they are free to seek employment elsewhere.Quote: LarrySIf your friends or family say to you" i used to get 4 weeks paid vacation, now I can take 4 weeks vacation but it is unpaid"
the answer according to you is..."thats great..I am tired of paying for that"
or
Iused to get 6 paid sick days a year....now I get only unpaid sick days
"thats great.....I am tired of paying for your sick time when I patronize your retail outlet"Quote:
Absolutely correct under certain circumstances. Judging by some of the plans offered to employees out there the consumers are paying for people's Lamborghini type plans.Quote: LarrySIf you think when a company reduced the pay or the benefits of their employees...they pass that savings down to you...you are living in an altered state of reality.
Walgreens has an 80 million dollar fine just in florida, and sharehlder lawsuiites regarding that single fine..... They very recently spent 7 Billion on overseas pharmacies. So if u think the savings from cutting peoples healthcare is going into your pocket....all I can do is smile at your naivete.
I see that you're one of those guys who can't do the math. Unless it is given to you in the form of a check, it's not a savings. So when a retailer holds a price where it is at, rather than increase it to maintain their margins, that's not a savings to you. Right? Sheesh......DO NOT blindly accept what has been spoken. DO NOT blindly accept what has been written. Think. Assess. Lead. DO NOT blindly follow.
Quote: steeldcoQuote: LarrySI am not familiar withthe specifics of the healthcare provided like you do.
However if you are happy to have your benefits reduced. Your healthcare taken away, or your wife's paid vacation taken away, or your daughter's paid holidays taken away......and the answer will be that you are tired of paying for it as a consumer....then you are rather heartless.Quote:
Unlike you, I understand that there are few entitlements (maybe you're actually a closet liberal?) If someone loses a benefit at their place of employment then they are free to seek employment elsewhere.Quote: LarrySIf your friends or family say to you" i used to get 4 weeks paid vacation, now I can take 4 weeks vacation but it is unpaid"
the answer according to you is..."thats great..I am tired of paying for that"
or
Iused to get 6 paid sick days a year....now I get only unpaid sick days
"thats great.....I am tired of paying for your sick time when I patronize your retail outlet"Quote:
Absolutely correct under certain circumstances. Judging by some of the plans offered to employees out there the consumers are paying for people's Lamborghini type plans.
I see that you're one of those guys who can't do the math. Unless it is given to you in the form of a check, it's not a savings. So when a retailer holds a price where it is at, rather than increase it to maintain their margins, that's not a savings to you. Right? Sheesh......
And what evidence do you present that the savings is going to holding prices down, and not going to the 7 billion dollar overseas aquisition of european pharmacies.
Quote: LarryS
And what evidence do you present that the savings is going to holding prices down, and not going to the 7 billion dollar overseas aquisition of european pharmacies.
Really? Always the same type of response when one can't defend their position.
Ridiculous. What evidence do you have that it won't? As I've previously stated, apparently if someone doesn't directly put it into your hands then it's not a savings. Right?
Being a simpleton is nice........
Quote: steeldcoReally? Always the same type of response when one can't defend their position.
Ridiculous. What evidence do you have that it won't? As I've previously stated, apparently if someone doesn't directly put it into your hands then it's not a savings. Right?
Being a simpleton is nice........
well then my assumption is as valid as yours.
exscept there is evidence that the company has big outlays of monies for a huge DEA fine in florida and a 7 billion dollar tab in europe.
but if u can assume savings in benefits will be passed on to the generalpublic, and not to the shareholders....dont be so certain
Quote: LarrySwell then my assumption is as valid as yours.
exscept there is evidence that the company has big outlays of monies for a huge DEA fine in florida and a 7 billion dollar tab in europe.
but if u can assume savings in benefits will be passed on to the generalpublic, and not to the shareholders....dont be so certain
No. Your assumption is less likely to be correct than mine. Application of a little common sense would help you.
If a company reduces its' healthcare costs then it will not need to raise prices in order to maintain margins if there is an equivalent INCREASE in another line item expense. Correct?
Lastly, I am not CERTAIN that it will go to the general public, but it is probable. It may very well go to the shareholders, particularly if there are no expense increases to offset.
Quote: LarrySwhile u are at it..tell us the mechanism of how obamacare is going to lower healthcare cost for us
Now this is where you and I significantly differ. I am not SURE that it will lower costs, unlike you who thinks he knows all. I am SURE, however, that the prior system didn't work.
I can tell you that I have seen, on a personal basis, decreases in my costs. Will EVERYONE see the same? No. The unanswered question is whether the MAJORITY will. One component that will definitely take a hit and reduce overall costs? Insurance brokers. Those middlemen will see less business and therefore lower costs for everyone.
Quote: steeldcoOne component that will definitely take a hit and reduce overall costs? Insurance brokers. Those middlemen will see less business and therefore lower costs for everyone.
Why would that lower costs? A broker will show a person or group what policies are available and help guide them to the right one. A broker could tell the customer what choices they might make in insurance coverage to lower costs. However, since Obama now chooses what kind of minimum coverage we need that option has been limited.
Just because there is a middleman does not mean costs must go up. Even if it does, there are plenty of people who would prefer to talk to a broker than give their information to the Obamacare website with all the known security and other problems it has had.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhy would that lower costs?
So you're saying that they work for free......our of the goodness of their hearts? Is that it?
Quote: AZDuffmanJust because there is a middleman does not mean costs must go up. Even if it does, there are plenty of people who would prefer to talk to a broker than give their information to the Obamacare website with all the known security and other problems it has had.
Once again, are there reading comprehension courses that one might take? Who said anything about what someone prefers? The discussion was about costs.
Most people are reluctant to change, or see change. Does that make them right? Low information? Highly intelligent? What are they.....those that can't stand change?
Quote: steeldcoSo you're saying that they work for free......our of the goodness of their hearts? Is that it?
Not at all, I am saying eliminating them does not give a 1:1 cost reduction. If the broker is eliminated then the product must be marketed some other way. Said way might very well cost more. TV and radio ads cost money, internet marketing costs money, more robust websites cost money. Additionally, a broker can supplant some basic customer support functions which otherwise have to be done in-house. Eliminating them is no guarantee of savings for a customer.
Quote:Once again, are there reading comprehension courses that one might take? Who said anything about what someone prefers? The discussion was about costs.
You may want to take the reading comprehension test then. Note where I said "Even if it does <lower costs> there are plenty of people who prefer to talk to a broker." This means some people are willing to pay for a service, in this case the broker.
The best way to lower costs is more competition and eliminate requirements for what plans must cover so people can make a choice. Eliminating maternity coverage would clearly lower my premium.
Quote: AZDuffmanEliminating them is no guarantee of savings for a customer.
This is kind of the problem with your side, you want guarantees and nobody can offer them. I KNOW that those broker costs will help reduce costs. By how much? That I don't know.
Can you offer a guarantee that costs won't rise without Obamacare? Of course not....a little common sense here please.
Quote: steeldcoNow this is where you and I significantly differ. I am not SURE that it will lower costs, unlike you who thinks he knows all. I am SURE, however, that the prior system didn't work.
I can tell you that I have seen, on a personal basis, decreases in my costs. Will EVERYONE see the same? No. The unanswered question is whether the MAJORITY will. One component that will definitely take a hit and reduce overall costs? Insurance brokers. Those middlemen will see less business and therefore lower costs for everyone.
what would cost the system more money. A single broker, or a single person who pays a small fee for not havinging insurance over the years, and then shows up at a hospital with chest pain, and is found to need a heart transplant within the next 6 months. Now the person has a pre-existing condition that turns my isirance company into a welfare system provider that will outlay 2 million dollars for this previously uninsured person who just showed up on their doorstep.
I am not even saying that this person was poor. Just someone who didnt think they needed health insurance and rolled the dice. Just like people who dont get fire insurance for their home, and roll the dice every day that a fire wont occur. Now if this guy applies to YOUR insurance company....YOUR insurance company will have to pay for this person....and pass the cost on to you.
If healthcare is an ENTITLEMENT....THAT EVERYONE DESERVES.....then there is no need for healthy people to get health INSURANCE. When the time comes for them to need health care....they will buy a policy that cant prohibit pre-exisiting conditions.
So a system where the sickest of the sick are allowed to buy "Isnsurance".......and the healthy can stand on the sidelines until they really need healthcare......is going to have costs reduced?????????????
what do you think your homeowners fire insurance policy would cost......if people could stand on the sidelines until their house burnt down, and then be allowed to buy a policy
Quote: steeldcoThis is kind of the problem with your side, you want guarantees and nobody can offer them. I KNOW that those broker costs will help reduce costs. By how much? That I don't know.
I'm confused. You say there is "no guarantee" yet you say you KNOW (emphasis yours) that those broker costs will help reduce costs.
Please, which is it?
My position is that to say because a broker is making a commission to eliminate him will lower costs is simpleton thinking. You can already buy an individual policy without a broker or using the obamacare website. I know this because I did it. If I were buying a group policy I would for sure want a broker to guide the process. It would be either a broker or an inside salesperson. Guess what? The broker on commission is more likely to find me a lower rate or some other savings because when he does he is more likely to sell a policy, which means he has a higher chance of eating.
I realize Obamacare supporters are against "profit" in health care, but there is nothing wrong with profit.
Quote:Can you offer a guarantee that costs won't rise without Obamacare?
I can guarantee that without Obamacare I could buy the policy I want more which will cost less. Instead of buying a Cadillac I can buy a Hyundai which suits my needs. Alas that choice has been taken away from me because Obama somehow knows better.
Quote: LarrySSo a system where the sickest of the sick are allowed to buy "Isnsurance".......and the healthy can stand on the sidelines until they really need healthcare......is going to have costs reduced?????????????
Exactly. If I was 30 why would I waste my money
when I can just wait and see if I get sick. If you
can buy it when your sick, it's no longer insurance,
is it. You're buying healthcare, insurance has nothing
to do with it.
And young people are avoiding Obamacare in staggering
numbers, they aren't stupid. It's like selling umbrellas
in the desert. I'll just wait and see if I need one, thanks
anyway..
Now....who needs insurance...Insurance companies HAVE TO insure you after the fact....after you got sick.
What iduiot would buy insurance now. It costs way less to avoid insurance and oay the small fine..
Insurance companies are now not "insurers"...they are administrators of healthcare to the masses without qualifications.
every other insurance company requires qualifications
life insurance..you need to not be a terminal case when purchasing the policy
home insurance....you cant have known fire hazards on your porperty, the coompany ewill not pay for your home's pre-exisiting condition of being burned down.
mal-practice insurance....insurance wont pay for malpractice that took place before coverage.date.
But health "insurance"...anything goes. They cant turn you away. Take an HIV test today and find its positive....buy insurance tomorrow and get treatment for life.
You are really no longer buying "insurance".....you are buying healthcare at a reduced price that is paid for by your fellow policy holders.
and prices will go down????? by what mechanism? Because some middle men were eliminated?.....really?
Quote: AZDuffmanI'm confused. You say there is "no guarantee" yet you say you KNOW (emphasis yours) that those broker costs will help reduce costs.
So you're saying that you don't know the difference between someone giving a guarantee and someone proclaiming to know something? Come on. Again, really? Wow.
Quote: steeldcoSo you're saying that you don't know the difference between someone giving a guarantee and someone proclaiming to know something? Come on. Again, really? Wow.
I'm saying you seem to be saying two different things. You KNOW something will be happening yet there is "no guarantee." Do we need to continue this over coffee at Waffle House?
"But amid the post-rollout political backlash, last week the agency created a new category: Now all you need to do is fill out a form attesting that your plan was cancelled and that you "believe that the plan options available in the [ObamaCare] Marketplace in your area are more expensive than your cancelled health insurance policy" or "you consider other available policies unaffordable.""
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304250204579433312607325596?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304250204579433312607325596.html
They are only signing up young folks at a 27% rate; they needed in the high 30's to pay for Obamacare. Millions have signed up but they are 25% or so behind their target now and there are almost a million who have "signed up" but paid nothing. The White House is stonewalling on the facts.
This program needs help, but no one who was for it seems to want to admit it. That means we are stuck with a bad law that won't be fixed in the near future.
Again, if the sickest of the sick are jumping to get coverage, and the young healthy folks are willing to sit on the sidelines until they get sick(since the health palns cannot deny pre-existing conditions)......and if the cost of healthcare is split amoung policy holders.....by what mechanism is healthcare going to go down on price for the majority.
wheter its a terminally ill person being alowed to buy a million dollar life insurance policy a week before their death, or a person being able to buy healthcare insurance a DAY BEFORE THEIR BRAIN SURGERY..........it all means high prices for both policies to the rest of us.
Quote: LarryS
Again, if the sickest of the sick are jumping to get coverage, and the young healthy folks are willing to sit on the sidelines until they get sick(since the health palns cannot deny pre-existing conditions)......and if the cost of healthcare is split amoung policy holders.....by what mechanism is healthcare going to go down on price for the majority.
That is the key--it was never about lowering costs for the majority, it was about giving free insurance to folks without it. The suckers, er Obama voters, who believed otherwise are now learning the truth. Included in this group are Obama's union buddies who thought that by saddling other employers with more health care costs their employers would be better off. SUCKERS!
47% of the population likes socialism, unless they have to pay for it.
Quote: AZDuffmanThat is the key--it was never about lowering costs for the majority, it was about giving free insurance to folks without it. The suckers, er Obama voters, who believed otherwise are now learning the truth. Included in this group are Obama's union buddies who thought that by saddling other employers with more health care costs their employers would be better off. SUCKERS!
47% of the population likes socialism, unless they have to pay for it.
So in order to get uninsured people to be able to get insurance, all obama had to do was be honest and tell us
for this to happen
you may not be able to keep your current insurance
you may not be able to keep your doctors or clinics
you will be involved in price increases to help pay for this
the tri-fecta of truths that was lied about by obama and his supporters
yes, people with certain diseases that were uninsurable could be covered by a govt program . All obama had to do was shift some funds from the welfare program, the military, the space program, the Arts, ...and help pay for these poor people that needed medical care.
Instead obama created the socialized medicine where the policy holders pay for the expense of the new sickly policyholders. Obama turned insurance companies into a welfare system that anyone can access without limits or exclusions. Its no longer "insurance".
It used to be you would buy health insurance and say to yourself"I am buying this to insure that if i got really sick or injured...i will have coverage, because if I wait till i am sick or injured, I wont be able to buy insurance". Now no big deal...you can get insurance on the way to the operating room
Quote: Dalex64Can you buy insurance on the way to the ER, or do you have to wait for the next open enrollment?
open enrollemt is many months. also 3 months next year.
which means today someone can be diagnosed with HIV and get insurance tomorrow for the same 600 dollars a month that I pay........even with the "insurance company " knowing that the average HIV person uses 600,000 dollars in healthcare over their lifetime.
which means todayI can be diagnosed with a heart condition that needs heart bypass surgery, and I can sign and pay the same 600 dollars you pay for insurance" and go into the 250k surgery/after surgery treatment the next day.
I can pay 600 dollars for a brain scan out of pocket,.....because I am having serve headaches, and be diagnosed with a brain tumor.....and tomorrow pay 600 dollars and get the surgery and after care, and continued years of therapy needed to get proper brain fucntion....
If I have a stroke today, causing me to need years and years of therapy just to be able to talk....that is not a problem as long as my wife signs me up tomorrow.
Its a great "insurance system"...and its all carved up between policy holders.
Heck there are going to be people waiting for open enrollment, possibly making this worse and more expensive totreat.....but once open enrollment gets here....they are entitled to the treatment that everyone else gets.....with their monthly premium. The people that wait for open enrollment will be even a bigger tax on the healthcare system...because their condition can be deteriorating.
Quote: LarrySSo in order to get uninsured people to be able to get insurance, all obama had to do was be honest and tell us
for this to happen
you may not be able to keep your current insurance
you may not be able to keep your doctors or clinics
you will be involved in price increases to help pay for this
Hopefully we never will have to experience they tyranny of single payer. It will again be sold as rainbows and unicorns where you enter any clinic you like, show your card, and get care. Of course the reality will be you will be told where to go, have a long wait, and little if any choice in anything. But 47% of the population will believe the hype and give up freedoms for free stuff. Those that try to explain that you cannot have all three of good/fast/cheap and if you want "cheap" health care then that is what you will get in the form of long waits or lower quality will be called mean and greedy.
Quote: LarryS
Its a great "insurance system"...and its all carved up between policy holders.
Heck there are going to be people waiting for open enrollment, possibly making this worse and more expensive totreat.....but once open enrollment gets here....they are entitled to the treatment that everyone else gets.....with their monthly premium. The people that wait for open enrollment will be even a bigger tax on the healthcare system...because their condition can be deteriorating.
So it sounds like you are advocating denying treatment to people who need it and are not insured, or people who need it and can not afford insurance. This is, I believe, the source of the "people dying on the hospital steps" statement.
So, who pays for it? All of these cases assume that a person is being treated for something, not left to die on the hospital steps.
Case 1 - a person is uninsured. The hospital treats the person, is unable to collect full payment from the patient, charges its other patients more to make up for it, which is paid for by their insurance companies if they are insured, which is paid for by the currently insured people who are paying for insurance.
Case 2 - a person is uninsured, but signs up for health insurance just before getting treatment. The insurance companies pay for the treatment, which is paid for by the currently insured people who are paying for insurance.
It seems to me, then, that there is no difference between someone who would not buy insurance in the past, and only goes to the hospital when they are sick, and everyone else ends up paying for it, and a person who does not buy insurance until they are sick, and everyone else ends up paying for it.
The difference under the new plan, then, is that more people are going to be insured, so more people will be absorbing the costs of paying for the people who exceed in expenses what they are putting into the system in premiums and copays, etc.
Quote: Dalex64The difference under the new plan, then, is that more people are going to be insured, so more people will be absorbing the costs of paying for the people who exceed in expenses what they are putting into the system in premiums and copays, etc.
The new plan is a Ponzi scheme reliant on younger people signing up. They are not doing so in the numbers necessary to support the coverage of the less healthy among us. The "mandate" that was so important to the whole thing has been weakened and delayed instead of implemented as the law was written. That makes the problem worse. The prices are higher, with higher deductibles, than many people thought and they might just pay the penalty more years than expected/projected when figuring out how much the program costs.
The president flat-out lied to us yet people are still willing to suspend disbelief and believe that it is going to work. I'm beginning to believe Harry Reid spoke for a lot of people when he said the goal all along was single payer. Let this fail under its own weight and swoop in to fix it with single payer.
Or tax the heck out of people to get them to pay for the shortfalls in signing up the younger folks...maybe that will be their answer.
There is already evidence that the uninsured get better care than those with some insurance under the plan in the case of an emergency--while everyone is screwing around to figure out what is covered and what is not, the patient with no insurance gets everything and will never pay a penny.
Many of us resent this whole thing not because they tried to improve health care but they screwed up our plans in the process. Cancellations, higher prices, higher deductibles, confusion, etc. don't give anyone confidence in the program. A government that won't even tell us the facts and figures about how many have signed up and paid on a regular basis also erodes trust.
Quote: AZDuffmanHopefully we never will have to experience they tyranny of single payer. It will again be sold as rainbows and unicorns where you enter any clinic you like, show your card, and get care. Of course the reality will be you will be told where to go, have a long wait, and little if any choice in anything. But 47% of the population will believe the hype and give up freedoms for free stuff. Those that try to explain that you cannot have all three of good/fast/cheap and if you want "cheap" health care then that is what you will get in the form of long waits or lower quality will be called mean and greedy.
A true visionary can draw on the experiences of other nations to design something that will surpass what other nations have been doing. Every other nation (aka the rest of the Western World) has either a single-pay system or a single-pay system with private options. Every other nation has their horror stories of inequitable coverage or long wait lists or abuses, etc.
I would suggest these horror stories are pretty much equivalent to the stories in the US, of people (until ObamaCare) not being able to get insurance because of pre-existing conditions, of having to go bankrupt, of having no coverage and not getting treatment, and so on and so forth. The difference in the stories between the US and the rest of the world is that the horror stories in the USA are mostly based on class -- lower or lower middle (which is why AZ can use the 47% argument) while the horror stories in the rest of the world are based on usage over all (but the very highest) classes.
Meanwhile, US health care costs are double the average of the rest of the world with no better outcome. It is worth it?
I'm convinced a well-designed single care system in the US could work, and could be truly the best in the world, if designed based on agreements (read: rainbows and unicorns) rather than exception.
It will be damned expensive because health care companies, doctors, and professionals will not want to give up their fantastically high wages. Insurance companies and hospital conglomerates will not want to give up their profits. But I still think it would be cheaper than what you have today (a complete disgrace) and would cover everybody.
Quote: boymimboIt will be damned expensive because health care companies, doctors, and professionals will not want to give up their fantastically high wages. Insurance companies and hospital conglomerates will not want to give up their profits. But I still think it would be cheaper than what you have today (a complete disgrace) and would cover everybody.
I would argue with you that physician do not have "fantastically high wages" based on their education level, the time it costs to get that education, and the cost of the education. You can decide for yourself; here is survey of salaries with some information:
http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/compensation/2013/public
We have added layers that do little to help with the medical care but yet are paid as part of it that do need to go, but it is nonsensical to say that quality people will undertake the process of becoming doctors if they are going to be forced to see many more patients AND get paid less.
Do we really want a system that drives potentially great physicians to a higher-earning or less stressful field because we are jealous of their salary.
I agree we can compromise on some things; other things will compromise our health care.
Care to cite which ones in the rest of this hemisphere besides Canada and the U.S.?Quote: boymimboEvery other nation (aka the rest of the Western World) has either a single-pay system or a single-pay system with private options.
Quote: boymimboA true visionary can draw on the experiences of other nations to design something that will surpass what other nations have been doing. Every other nation (aka the rest of the Western World) has either a single-pay system or a single-pay system with private options. Every other nation has their horror stories of inequitable coverage or long wait lists or abuses, etc.
We didn't elect a true visionary. We elected someone who wanted to cut up the pie and give more of it to people who did little to help make the pie.
Kidding aside, we did not see any bright lights putting together Obamacare. We saw a rush to get things done, to promise the world, and now a rush to delay implementation by the very people who brought us this fine disaster.
...and Pelosi says the Republicans shouldn't use Obamacare as an issue?
Quote: Dalex64So it sounds like you are advocating denying treatment to people who need it and are not insured, or people who need it and can not afford insurance. This is, I believe, the source of the "people dying on the hospital steps" statement.
So, who pays for it? All of these cases assume that a person is being treated for something, not left to die on the hospital steps.
Case 1 - a person is uninsured. The hospital treats the person, is unable to collect full payment from the patient, charges its other patients more to make up for it, which is paid for by their insurance companies if they are insured, which is paid for by the currently insured people who are paying for insurance.
Case 2 - a person is uninsured, but signs up for health insurance just before getting treatment. The insurance companies pay for the treatment, which is paid for by the currently insured people who are paying for insurance.
It seems to me, then, that there is no difference between someone who would not buy insurance in the past, and only goes to the hospital when they are sick, and everyone else ends up paying for it, and a person who does not buy insurance until they are sick, and everyone else ends up paying for it.
The difference under the new plan, then, is that more people are going to be insured, so more people will be absorbing the costs of paying for the people who exceed in expenses what they are putting into the system in premiums and copays, etc.
who said that [people should die. There is medicaide inplace for people who cant afford to provide the minimum living conditions for themselves and their family.
Medicaide includes health insurance....some refer to it as welfare. But its there.
So if the govt is concerned that there are people outside of welfare that are uninsured/ cant pay for medical care..all they have to do is set up a support system for them. Instead of turning insurance companies into a welfare system, instead of causing hardship to millions of people who lose their doctors and pay more for insurance or for the use of insurance.....they could just shift funds(not raise taxes),,,from the military, from the support of the arts, from relief of overseas countries, from the space program, and dozens of other programs.....and support these people that have fallen thru the cracks.
Instead of addressing a relative few people compared to affecting the whole group of policy holders....the govt involves all the policyholders to chip in an pay for the uninsured. Its like another tax. Except for one thing. If the govt decided to impose a tax(instead of shifting funds making it tax neutral),....the tax would be shared differently between the rich and the poor taxpayers. But with obamacare...all the policyholders share the cost equally.The average middleclass worker with a family of 4 will pay the same extra healthcare cost as the family of 4 with a 250k a year income. Obviously the upperclass family of 4 can absorb the extra copays, and deductables than the middleclass family of 4 that watches every penny. The workingclass thought obama was for the people. I guess they were wrong. He is for "the people" at their expense.
so letting people "die on the steps of the hospital".......was never the only alternative to obamacare. Although supporters of obamacare like yourself like to pull out that visual...but really..its just a dishonest alternative.
Quote: LarryS
so letting people "die on the steps of the hospital".......was never the only alternative to obamacare. Although supporters of obamacare like yourself like to pull out that visual...but really..its just a dishonest alternative.
I don't believe that I have yet expressed my personal opinion on Obamacare. I am pointing out what someone else said in this thread. He did not claim that this was his opinion, just that he had heard the argument.
I am also pointing out what I perceive as logical flaws in people's arguments.
For instance, insurance companies are not going to pay for the medical care, the people who have insurance are.
If instead you set up this support system to have taxes pay for it, regardless of whether or not it is tax neutral, the people will pay for it, not the government.
So, whether or not you tax people and give them insurance (Canada) or force people to buy insurance (Obamacare), the theory is you will have more people paying for insurance, so the total cost of all medical care should be spread out over more people.
The goal, I believe, is to have more people insured. Of course it is going to cost the healthy people who currently don't have insurance and currently don't need medical care more money than it did before.
I think one main thing it comes down to is, if people who can not afford it are not going to be turned away from medical care, what is the most fair way to pay for it?
You can either tax everyone (who is currently paying taxes), or make everyone buy insurance, which is another way of saying tax everyone who is currently paying taxes.
1- out of the 4.2 million sign ups....how may have paid
2- out of the 4.2 million sign ups...how many previously didnt have insurance ...after all, the point of this fiasco is to get the uninsured some coverage coverage..
imagine someone in charge couldnt be ready with these type of facts and figures. You would think she would have someone in her dept research this. Poll the insurance companies.
tHE SUCCESS of the program revolves around the answers to the above 2 questions.
If people were cut from full time and made part time in order to avoid the healthcare benefit...well then its a different story than if those 4.2 million were mostly uninsured people previously.
And if people are signing up...but when it comes to mailing in the check,,,,they dont do it....thats another story. And will they continue to send in the check. We all know how people atart off buying car insurance when they buy their car....but then things come up and they dont send in the quarterly renewal check, letting it lapse.
As com[panies like Walgreens get out of the business of supplying healthcare coverage...leaving it to the people to pay theirown premiums.....we will see more and more of lapsed coverage.
Quote: Dalex64I don't believe that I have yet expressed my personal opinion on Obamacare. I am pointing out what someone else said in this thread. He did not claim that this was his opinion, just that he had heard the argument
I think one main thing it comes down to is, if people who can not afford it are not going to be turned away from medical care, what is the most fair way to pay for it?
You can either tax everyone (who is currently paying taxes), or make everyone buy insurance, which is another way of saying tax everyone who is currently paying taxes.
you cant make everyone buy insurance which is the biggest flaw in obamacare
currently 1 in 7 motorists are uninsured,and the number is rising.
If someone has the choice of going on vacation or sending in a premium payment...some will go on vacation.
If someone has a choice of buying their kids christmass presents or sending in a premium checjk....some will buy the presents instead.
Quote: boymimboA
The difference in the stories between the US and the rest of the world is that the horror stories in the USA are mostly based on class -- lower or lower middle (which is why AZ can use the 47% argument) while the horror stories in the rest of the world are based on usage over all (but the very highest) classes.
I will take the US System there. I do not want to see it when we have "Affirmative Action" in health care.
Quote:Meanwhile, US health care costs are double the average of the rest of the world with no better outcome. It is worth it?
Yes, because in the USA you can (until Obamacare) choose what level of insurance to have and how much you want to spend. If you want cheaper care you can go to a free-clinic. If you want personal service you can pay for that too. If you like doctor visits there are HMOs. If you do not you (pre-obamacare) could get a high-deductible policy and put aside cash in a HSA.
The USA pays more for health care because we use more health care. The USA takes 50% of the prescription drugs on the planet.
Quote:I'm convinced a well-designed single care system in the US could work, and could be truly the best in the world, if designed based on agreements (read: rainbows and unicorns) rather than exception.
Why would it work here when it does not work anywhere else? BTW: here is a news flash. All those evil "profits" social-medicine believers hate will go to government waste. Insurance companies have incentive to make things run smoother, government does not.
Quote: AZDuffmanI will take the US System there. I do not want to see it when we have "Affirmative Action" in health care.
Yes, because in the USA you can (until Obamacare) choose what level of insurance to have and how much you want to spend. If you want cheaper care you can go to a free-clinic. If you want personal service you can pay for that too. If you like doctor visits there are HMOs. If you do not you (pre-obamacare) could get a high-deductible policy and put aside cash in a HSA.
The USA pays more for health care because we use more health care. The USA takes 50% of the prescription drugs on the planet.
Why would it work here when it does not work anywhere else? BTW: here is a news flash. All those evil "profits" social-medicine believers hate will go to government waste. Insurance companies have incentive to make things run smoother, government does not.
Correct.
And the higher cost of healthcare is not because doctors/nurses/pharmacists are getting rich
the united states allows lawyers to sue for unlimited/uncapped money for errors or perceived errors. Hospitals in mexico dont get sued for 40 million dollars for a proposed mistake.
which leads to huge malpractice rates.
Look at commercials lately for class action suites against drug companies...lawyers are advertising all over TV. did you ever see that 5 or 10 years ago?
Americans are prone to have compulsive intake of fast food and junk food. Children dont play outside, and rather sit in front of a terminal. Obesity leads to diabetes, lower joint damage, hypertension/heart disease, stroke. It leads to inability to get a job or do your job effectively.
Mexico and USA are the top 2 obese countries. With the influx of people from mexico into our country..of course thois will be a tax on our healthcare with a higher percentage of obese people coming in...than would come in from japan, or german, or russia.
Quote: LarryS
Americans are prone to have compulsive intake of fast food and junk food. Children dont play outside, and rather sit in front of a terminal. Obesity leads to diabetes, lower joint damage, hypertension/heart disease, stroke. It leads to inability to get a job or do your job effectively.
I don't even buy that it is diet or obesity. I feel the issue is that we have an attitude of "insurance covers it" so people are not careful shoppers and consumers. Ask your doctor's office what a test costs and they cannot tell you! If we got pricing transparent we would get somewhere.
