Obamacare
Quote: P90And this says something about these people who go to college even though they don't belong there and have no interest in learning, just so they can try and look down on their fellow man (it's a democrat thing), instead of acquiring a useful trade they can actually earn money with, not default on their subsidized loan and campaign for more handouts.
This is among the lamest things I've read.
According to the US Department of Education, on average, 13.4% of student loans go into default over three years. The default rates are far higher in the non-degree granting year schools (Proprietary) where the default rate is 22.7% (1,006,190 loans entered repayment plans over three years). The rate for public institutions is 11% (1,778,645 loans entered repayment plans in three years), while private institutions are at 7.5% (835,492 loans over three years).
So in short, the students who go into the default the most are the ones going into schools to learn a trade (by a factor of about 250% over degree granting institutions). The folks that P90 are talking about represents about 9% of degree-granting college students.
About $86.5 billion in student loans are in default which is about 10% of the total student debt. That is high and is more related to the affordability and quality of higher education to begin with and with the unavailability of jobs after graduation.
In Canada, high school careers classes (a mandatory credit here in Ontario) are teaching kids that learning a trade is valuable and that university or college isn't for everybody. We have generous subsidized loan and grant programs based on the parent (and student's) incomes and resources.
It's a statement of exclusion. By calling university students a bunch of lazy bums who default on their student loans to collect more handouts is just shortsighted, dumb, and factually incorrect and just alienates university students.
By generalizing welfare recipients as a bunch of lazy bums who are just living on handouts excludes ALL welfare recipients from voting GOP. And the statement is also factually incorrect. Most welfare recipients do not want to be on welfare. They're out of work because they can't find work.
There is a segment of both the student loan defaulters and welfare recipients who are indeed milking the system. But rather than alienate the entire population, it's better to target the statement at that particular segment.
------------------------------
73% of Asian Americans voted for Obama in 2012, up from 62% in 2008. According to exit polling, only 62% of Asian-Americans in California voted Democrat. In Pennsylvania, the rate was 89% for Obama. NY and MI was 86% Obama, NV 81%, NJ 77%.
So your factoid that "GOP lost Asians because so many Asians live in CA" is not true. Asian Americans make generally more money than whites, yet they are voting Democrat. Newt was right.
Kerry carried the Asian American vote with 56% in 2004. Clinton did not have the Asian vote. In 1992, Clinton only received 31% of the Asian vote.
Quote: boymimboAZ, it's the far right who make statements like P90s. The far left make equally dumb statements.
It's a statement of exclusion. By calling university students a bunch of lazy bums who default on their student loans to collect more handouts is just shortsighted, dumb, and factually incorrect and just alienates university students.
By generalizing welfare recipients as a bunch of lazy bums who are just living on handouts excludes ALL welfare recipients from voting GOP. And the statement is also factually incorrect. Most welfare recipients do not want to be on welfare. They're out of work because they can't find work.
From what I have seen about 1/3 of welfare receipients are interim and will shortly find work. 1/3 will find work if forced to do so (the reason the Gingrich welfare reform of 1996 was successful), and the remaining 1/3 are long term often multigenerational receipients who have no desire to work to feed themsves. This last group know how to work the system and tend to be rude and demanding with anyone they deal with.
I don't remember anyone calling uiversity students a bunch of lazy bums as a group. Many called ows and the whiners who want their loans forgiven a bunch of lazy bums.
As to the trade school default rate it is a shame how we teach trades in the USA. So many high schools kill trade education and give more time to college prep. Reality is 40% or so of college freshmen should not be there. If the hs had some kind of rotating trade education where students saw basics of a few trades, say Is it just me or do the new jax uniforms look like gang outfits?carpentry, electricity, and plumbing they might discover they like one. Instead they get shoved into coege, majoring in general studies because they don't know what they want to do, and drop 5-10M and drop out. When a candidate points this out he is "against education."
Quote: boymimboAZ, it's the far right who make statements like P90s. The far left make equally dumb statements.
It's a statement of exclusion. By calling university students a bunch of lazy bums who default on their student loans to collect more handouts is just shortsighted, dumb, and factually incorrect and just alienates university students.
By generalizing welfare recipients as a bunch of lazy bums who are just living on handouts excludes ALL welfare recipients from voting GOP. And the statement is also factually incorrect. Most welfare recipients do not want to be on welfare. They're out of work because they can't find work.
There is a segment of both the student loan defaulters and welfare recipients who are indeed milking the system. But rather than alienate the entire population, it's better to target the statement at that particular segment.
------------------------------
73% of Asian Americans voted for Obama in 2012, up from 62% in 2008. According to exit polling, only 62% of Asian-Americans in California voted Democrat. In Pennsylvania, the rate was 89% for Obama. NY and MI was 86% Obama, NV 81%, NJ 77%.
So your factoid that "GOP lost Asians because so many Asians live in CA" is not true. Asian Americans make generally more money than whites, yet they are voting Democrat. Newt was right.
Kerry carried the Asian American vote with 56% in 2004. Clinton did not have the Asian vote. In 1992, Clinton only received 31% of the Asian vote.
Heres my take on the Asian American vote and I am an Asian American.
1st off the community generally consists or Cantonese (Southern China) and Mandarin (Northern China)
Generally the Cantonese are the Restuarant owners and The Mandarin are Doctors, these are broad stereotypes but in general are true.
I'm half Mandarin so my viewpoint is from that community.
I can only speak for myself, family and close Mandarin friends.
In my small circle, parents dream of their children becoming Doctors. Money, Prestige and you are helping to heal people.
So Asian American Mandarin Parents put a very high value on Science , especially biology due to the core subjects to become a Doctor.
Many on the right disrespect science by puishing creationism in our schools and that in my opinion is the crux of the problem Asian Americans have with Republicans.
Mandarin Asian Americans put a high value on science, its very very important to Parents that their children do well in science.
Creationism is not science. Intelligent design is not science. Thats the problem on the right, Asian American want their children to be taught Science, not pseudoscience.
Quote: boymimboThere is a segment of both the student loan defaulters and welfare recipients who are indeed milking the system. But rather than alienate the entire population, it's better to target the statement at that particular segment.
I did target that segment, if you read the posts in full.
The brief point is that just because someone's in college doesn't mean they are bright/enlightened/the future of our nation/a source of valuable opinions. A large fraction of students (relatively few go as far as to default on their loan, since the consequences are more severe than for commercial loans and there's plenty of stalling options offered) are there for all sorts of reasons, but not to receive knowledge and productively use it after.
Quote: boymimboBy generalizing welfare recipients as a bunch of lazy bums who are just living on handouts excludes ALL welfare recipients from voting GOP. And the statement is also factually incorrect. Most welfare recipients do not want to be on welfare. They're out of work because they can't find work.
Same here - I made no mention of welfare. Rather specifically of [people who believe they] must be catered to because they happened to grace this soil with the miracle of their birth.
"Positive rights" is a big thing with the lefties. This belief in automatic entitlements is pervasive in liberal policy, even to the detriment of both personal freedom and common good.
Quote: terapined
1st off the community generally consists or Cantonese (Southern China) and Mandarin (Northern China).
Where's that, on Taiwan? Where I live the
Asian community is 75% Vietnamese. What
the heck are you talking about.
Quote: EvenBobWhere's that, on Taiwan? Where I live the
Asian community is 75% Vietnamese. What
the heck are you talking about.
Where are you on the map, EB?
Quote: rxwineWhere are you on the map, EB?
Thats not where I live.
Quote: CS94Bob, I could not find any cases where the Bush administration intervened on behalf of a child to move to the front of the adult organ transplant list. Would it be possible for you to back up your accusations with some links to news articles or names of children that were moved to the front of the list?
Crickets
2 years ago, private party contracts. For a
yearly fee of $350 he does everything he normally
does in his office for a patient. Office visits, lab,
yearly physical. It's not insurance, it's a private
contractor agreement, like you have with the guy
who plows your driveway or does your lawn care
or does your finances.
It's totally legal. I saw him last week and he said
almost every doctor he knows is doing it now, it's
money in their pockets, no insurance middleman
to pay. He guarantee's service for a pre paid
amount, nothing the gov't can do about it. Same
as having a lawyer on retainer.
If Obama tries to stop it, the entire legal system would
have to change, and that's not gonna happen.
Quote: Beethoven9thIf it's not insurance, aren't people subject to the fine though?
The doctor contracts have nothing to do with
Obamacare. It's a way to keep your own
doctor no matter what shaft job Obamacare
tries to hand you. $30 a month is cheap. The
physical alone costs $300 if you have regular
insurance. The doctor looks at it as all labor
on his part and it's all profit. And the patient
has access to a prescription pad for $30 a
month, from their own family doctor.
Anyway, the same policy now costs nearly double and even a $6250 deductible 70/30 that covers nothing else is 50% more than my policy now. My wife is studying to be a teacher but will not be licensed for 2 years. At that point we can use her benefits but we cannot afford to pay the increases. Even if we could, we would end up having to put our two kids on the state health care plan. By the way, you can't get subsidies up front if you are self employed. I am not even sure you can get them at all. The law is unclear there. At the very least you would have to pay out of pocket and hope you get a refund.
Unfortunately, we will have to go uninsured for two years thanks to Obamacare. Our kids will now become a burden on the state health system and so will we if we get sick.
Quote: EvenBobMy doctor found the alternative to Obamacare
2 years ago, private party contracts. For a
yearly fee of $350 he does everything he normally
does in his office for a patient. Office visits, lab,
yearly physical. It's not insurance, it's a private
contractor agreement, like you have with the guy
who plows your driveway or does your lawn care
or does your finances.
It's totally legal. I saw him last week and he said
almost every doctor he knows is doing it now, it's
money in their pockets, no insurance middleman
to pay. He guarantee's service for a pre paid
amount, nothing the gov't can do about it. Same
as having a lawyer on retainer.
If Obama tries to stop it, the entire legal system would
have to change, and that's not gonna happen.
This is exactly the kind of innovation we need, not insurance with features we do not want. If I could get my doctor to do a physical, lab work, say 1-2 visits a year for when I get a cold or something, and be available to call in my prescription by phone I would love it. Pair it with hospitalization of some sort and it is all most people need.
Quote: PokeraddictI am self employed and my insurance company sent me a cancellation notice last week because our current policy does not conform to Obamacare standards (remember that 'You will get to keep your insurance' lie?).
Anyway, the same policy now costs nearly double and even a $6250 deductible 70/30 that covers nothing else is 50% more than my policy now. My wife is studying to be a teacher but will not be licensed for 2 years. At that point we can use her benefits but we cannot afford to pay the increases. Even if we could, we would end up having to put our two kids on the state health care plan. By the way, you can't get subsidies up front if you are self employed. I am not even sure you can get them at all. The law in unclear there. At the very least you would have to pay out of pocket and hope you get a refund.
Unfortunately, we will have to go uninsured for two years thanks to Obamacare. Our kids will now become a burden on the state health system and so will we if we get sick.
Somehow I don't think we will see you and your story being told in the Rose Garden.
Good start, maybe they will soon see the rest of the light and get rid of the entire thing!
Quote: AZDuffmanThis is exactly the kind of innovation we need, not insurance with features we do not want. If I could get my doctor to do a physical, lab work, say 1-2 visits a year for when I get a cold or something, and be available to call in my prescription by phone I would love it. .
He has his own on site lab, so that helps tremendously.
Farming out lab work is very expensive. His lawyer says
they expect a gov't challenge along the line, but they
don't have a leg to stand on. This isn't insurance, this
is a pre paid contract, you're exchanging money for service.
Totally different than insurance.
He told me he has doctor friends in Canada and they can't
do this there because private practice by a doctor is illegal,
it's a jailable offense. I had no idea, what a great place to
live.
Quote: EvenBobHe has his own on site lab, so that helps tremendously.
Farming out lab work is very expensive. His lawyer says
they expect a gov't challenge along the line, but they
don't have a leg to stand on. This isn't insurance, this
is a pre paid contract, you're exchanging money for service.
Totally different than insurance.
He told me he has doctor friends in Canada and they can't
do this there because private practice by a doctor is illegal,
it's a jailable offense. I had no idea, what a great place to
live.
I buy that on lab work, if you live in a rural area it will be worse. When I was a courier I moved a lot of blood work, sometimes they paid $80 or more just to ship the samples. Of course in Canada you probably just wait a few weeks.
Quote: AZDuffmanI buy that on lab work, if you live in a rural area it will be worse. When I was a courier I moved a lot of blood work, sometimes they paid $80 or more just to ship the samples. Of course in Canada you probably just wait a few weeks.
Or they do it during the autopsy when you die
during the wait. Last year I forgot to go in to
give a blood sample before my physical. No
problem, the girl took it when I got there and
halfway thru the exam she brought the results
to the doctor. Just like in Canada, I'm sure.
Quote: boymimboEveryone will get paid less in the race to the bottom. Perhaps lawyers will be next...
The same people who advocate the destruction of unions also advocate for inflated doctor's salaries.
My daughter is likely to try medical school at McGill (at least that's what her plan is). There is absolutely no lack of demand here in Canada for people entering medical school, despite the "very low" salaries that are in Canada and everywhere else in the world.
Better get your stats up to date BM. Canada is now graduating more doctors than it can use and there are specialists graduating who can't find a residency. The problem is expected to get worse as the doctors in the system graduate over the coming years. Small communities particularly in the north still have problems but this is because todays doctors do not want to be GP's but want the big bucks a specialist makes.
This was all over both Global and CBC earlier this month. If you can't find it I will try to find a link for you.
Quote: estebanreyAs a Brit I'll never understand the opposition to national healthcare you get from large parts of the American right wing. The thought of losing the NHS would scare the hell out of me. I also don't understand why the word 'socialism' is used as an pejorative word in the States either; where I'm from it's just a political viewpoint you can either agree or disagree with. Nor is it an all or nothing like a lot of [paranoid] Americans seem to be (from reading this thread), you can have 'socialised' healthcare alongside private healthcare, nor does having national healthcare mean you're suddenly going to turn into communist China.
Life and health are a human right and shouldn't be dependent on how rich you are. The NHS prioritises by need, the US health system seems to prioritise by the wealth of the patient which is wrong is my opinion.
A "Brit"? Shouldn't you be facing East and praying with the rest of your country right about now?
Quote: anonimussAs a Brit I'll never understand
Understand this. Britain has less population
than California and Texas together. We have
6 times the population of GB. It's too big for
socialized healthcare, as they're finding out.
How many "Wards of the State" will this make out of regular people with debt and low income that are not already on XIX. MHO is this smacks of Indebted Servitude.
Try getting an accurate accounting of services rendered, there will be at least 4 sets of books. So this will IMHO extend my remarks that allowing same-sex marriages opens the door to slavery.
Quote: 98ClubsTo further EvenBob... its an Elephant in a closet. And judging by the smell, it may be too late to open the door.
How many "Wards of the State" will this make out of regular people with debt and low income that are not already on XIX. MHO is this smacks of Indebted Servitude.
Try getting an accurate accounting of services rendered, there will be at least 4 sets of books. So this will IMHO extend my remarks that allowing same-sex marriages opens the door to slavery.
Anybody with low income and half a brain will just pay the penalty and sign on when they get sick. The only way for obamacare to have any value is if you could short it.
Quote: anonimussAnybody with low income and half a brain will just pay the penalty and sign on when they get sick. The only way for obamacare to have any value is if you could short it.
Like somebody pointed out today, if it's
this much of a clusterfrick just finding
out what you have to pay, what's it going
to be like when it gets going? It will never
work, and the fraud that's ALREADY involved
is in the hundreds of millions.
How the ObamaCare Tax Penalty Works
Your tax penalty (shared responsibility fee) for not having insurance is paid on your taxes at the end of the year. If your taxable income is below 133% of the FPL you are exempt from this tax.
2014 = $95 per person per year or 1% of your Income
2015 = $325 per person per year or 2% of your Income
2016 = $695 per person per year or 2.5% of your Income
2017 = Tax Penalty will increase by the rate of inflation going forward, or 2.5% of your Income
• The penalty is based on modified adjusted gross income.
• The total penalty for the taxable year cannot exceed the national average of the annual premiums of a bronze-level health insurance plan offered through the health insurance marketplaces.
• The maximum penalty per family is capped at no more than 300% of the minimum penalty (e.g. $695 x 300% = $2,085)
• Children under 18 are assessed at 50% of the minimum penalty.
• The penalty is pro-rated for the number of months you are without health insurance, though there is no penalty for a single gap in coverage of less than 3 months in a year.
• Health insurance plans will provide proof of coverage for their customers so as long as you have health insurance you don't have to worry about the details.
There's a couple of problems with that. 1) you can only sign up for Obamacare during the sign up period which is 6 months this year but will become much smaller going forward. So if you're going to wait until you get sick, your timing better be awesome. 2) There is no penalty. For all of the talk of of a penalty, there is actually no method to enforce the penalty. The IRS is specifically forbidden from collecting a penalty for non-compliance (see page 336 of the ACA).Quote: anonimussAnybody with low income and half a brain will just pay the penalty and sign on when they get sick. The only way for Obamacare to have any value is if you could short it.
Quote: Obamacare12 (A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In
13 the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely
14 pay any penalty imposed by this section, such
15 taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal
16 prosecution or penalty with respect to such fail-
17 ure.
18 (B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—
19 The Secretary shall not—
20 (i) file notice of lien with respect to
21 any property of a taxpayer by reason of
22 any failure to pay the penalty imposed by
23 this section, or
24 (ii) levy on any such property with
25 respect to such failure.
Quote: 98ClubsThe gov't will soon wise up and raise that penalty to lets say $4000 (IIRC its something like $700 or $800)
The uninsured fine is $95 per adult and $47.50 per child. There is alternatively a 1% tax on high earners, but it can only come out of a refund.
*Someone else got to it first
Quote: PokeraddictThe uninsured fine is $95 per adult and $47.50 per child.
That's for the first year. The fine goes up big time each additional year.
Quote: anonimussBTW..the gov't can only collect the fine if you have money due on your tax return. If you don't overpay, they can't collect it.
Pretty sure that's not true... they bill you, like whenever you end up owing in April.
Perhaps you missed this part:Quote: 24BingoPretty sure that's not true... they bill you, like whenever you end up owing in April.
Helpful Link
They can't collect. It's written into the law.Quote: page 336 of Obamacare12 (A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In
13 the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely
14 pay any penalty imposed by this section, such
15 taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal
16 prosecution or penalty with respect to such fail-
17 ure.
18 (B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—
19 The Secretary shall not—
20 (i) file notice of lien with respect to
21 any property of a taxpayer by reason of
22 any failure to pay the penalty imposed by
23 this section, or
24 (ii) levy on any such property with
25 respect to such failure.
...what?
So if you're uninsured, you just short pay them, and they can't touch you? As if this needed to be more of a mess...
(Of course, the point of the bill is to fail, isn't it?)
Quote: EverWrong
I buy that on lab work, if you live in a rural area it will be worse. When I was a courier I moved a lot of blood work, sometimes they paid $80 or more just to ship the samples. Of course in Canada you probably just wait a few weeks.
Hospitals have their own labs, as do a few doctor's offices. Lab tests typically take 2 - 3 days to complete, and you come back in for your results if there is a problem.
Quote: boymimboHospitals have their own labs, as do a few doctor's offices. Lab tests typically take 2 - 3 days to complete, and you come back in for your results if there is a problem.
Fine if you want to hump all the way over to the hospital and wait with 100+ other people in a socialist system. Here in the USA we have labs in lots of places so you can just stop in, get blood drawn, and get out in a short time.
If you live in a place with socialized medicine you may be familiar with such convenient service, it is usually the kind of service you get when you take your dog to the vet.
I know, our health care is so bad that we live longer than our American counterparts and generally have better health outcomes in every category at about half the cost. You would think that the extra $300,000 (lifetime, based on 2011 costs) that that the average American is going spend on health care would mean that you will live a better quality of life. The statistics don't lie - you don't.
Or even more significantly for the 50+% who do not pay any income tax whatsoever.Quote: anonimussBTW..the gov't can only collect the fine if you have money due on your tax return. If you don't overpay, they can't collect it.
Most people look at the premiums and say,,hey great I am saving 300 dollars a year, 500 dollars a year etc.
except for one thing. Look at what your policy used to pay for
If you get an MRI, was it free before and now its 100 dollar deductable
If you get an xray, was it 10 dollar deductable before and now you pay full price until you reach your newly inflated deductable
is office visit copays now 35 dollars instead of 10 dollars?If you have 2 or 3 kids that gets dsick a few times a year..that alone eats up any premium savings
Look at what you actually pay for using the medical services, and look what youused to pay. Deductables have shotup. paying a "percent" of the price of services is becomng a new norm where your 10 dollar copay for lab tests is replaced by a 10 percent fee where you now pay 30-40 dollars.
for people that pay premiums and never use healthcare....obamacare is a bargain. THEY can get low deductables.
But with all the people with pre-exsisting conditions that insurance companies are forced to take now.....well we all pay for it.
Its kind of like what would happen to your homeowners insurance prices if you can not pay for insurance for years, leave your home in disrepair, and then it burns down, and you walk up to the agent and say "my house has a prexsisiting condition of being burned down so I will gladly pay the premiums so you can fix my home"
,,and the govt tells the insurance company that they have to take your business and rebuild your house. Or how about being able to buy a death benefit life insurance policy AFTER the death. You father dies and then you walk into the insurance office and tell them you would like to buya death benefit policy for dad...and the govt says you ahve to give it.
Well thats whats happened to health insurance.......and we will all pay for it. Its no longer "insurance"....its a welfare program. there used to be a seperate welfare program that ther govt and states paid for...for the indigent......now its changed...we are all part of the govt program. paying into it.
Quote:Well thats whats happened to health insurance.......and we will all pay for it. Its no longer "insurance"....its a welfare program.
People with pre-existing conditions who can't afford insurance, and the indigent have been running up taxpayer bills all along. They just do it in emergency rooms when the hospitals can no longer turn them away because they are too sick.
People who for decades have let their conditions deteriorate, will now present themselves for your insurance company to make things right for them.And you will pay for it. Through increased deductables, increased copays, increased percentages of payment for services, more services "not covered". Someone has to pay for it.
Just like the guy who has his house burn down,and now buy "Insurance" after the fact where the insurance company now has to rebuild his home as per govt directive.
6 million people will now per govt directive, get "insurance"
it used to be the welfare system for the indigent and uninsured was paid for by state and federal dollars.
Now its going to be paid for by the insured.
Quote:it used to be the welfare system for the indigent and uninsured was paid for by state and federal dollars.
Either way, it's not free money. And if it is free money, then we can print our way out of all our problems.
It doesn't make economic sense to treat health conditions after they get so severe they require emergency services or intensive
care, or damage the body irreversibly requiring even more medications and/or treatment.
Quote: boymimbo
I know, our health care is so bad that we live longer than our American counterparts and generally have better health outcomes in every category at about half the cost. You would think that the extra $300,000 (lifetime, based on 2011 costs) that that the average American is going spend on health care would mean that you will live a better quality of life.
The extra money we spend in the USA is because we can get care far faster than can be gotten in Canada as has been proven time and time again. Like most Americans I will take the pre-Obamacare USA system over the Canadian one any day. What I do not get is why an outsider would care so much, other than misery loves company?
Quote: AZDuffmanThe extra money we spend in the USA is because we can get care far faster than can be gotten in Canada as has been proven time and time again. Like most Americans I will take the pre-Obamacare USA system over the Canadian one any day. What I do not get is why an outsider would care so much, other than misery loves company?
It seems to me that you have an agenda and like to disregard any facts and when you couple that with the fact that you do not understand the entirety of the plan and you have someone that is not worth listening to.
I fully admit that I do not completely understand the plan. I fully admit that you can be entirely right. I also happen to believe that commentary shouldn't be spun to match an agenda. It serves little purpose.
Lastly, just a question.......I am a man who paid next to nothing in health care up until my mid-50s. NOTHING. Now after having gone thru bouts with heart related items and then cancer, I probably have racked up somewhere between $500K and $1M in care. Mostly nicely paid for by the insurance company. I am, undoubtedly well ahead of the game. So now I ask you, since the younger people currently pay nearly nothing and then when they age, they incur huge bills, wouldn't it make more sense to get everybody insured now and thereby paying for those huge future bills. Rather than have everyone else funding it? That would seem to be the fair thing to do. Why should I have gotten a free ride?
Quote: steeldcoIt seems to me that you have an agenda and like to disregard any facts and when you couple that with the fact that you do not understand the entirety of the plan and you have someone that is not worth listening to.
I do not disregard facts. I merely do not let a small number of cherry-picked "facts" decide things. We keep hearing "Canadians live longer" as if that is the sole measure of an effective health care system. But it disregards that Americans live more high-risk lives and the USA collects data in different ways. As to understanding the plan, I understand that it is a government hand-out and part of the Democrat Party's drive to single-payer, a terrible idea. I have not read the entire thing and feel no need to as Obama and the Democrats who passed it did not even read the bill before they passed it.
So now I ask you, since the younger people currently pay nearly nothing and then when they age, they incur huge bills, wouldn't it make more sense to get everybody insured now and thereby paying for those huge future bills. Rather than have everyone else funding it? That would seem to be the fair thing to do. Why should I have gotten a free ride?
No, this does not make sense. Because as time goes by these programs always get cut back and those paying now will get a lower quality of care later. If people want insurance they can buy it. If an insurer wants to make some kind of "whole life health insurance" so you pay the flat rate all of your life then try that.
What is a terrible idea is forcing people into a plan they do not want and may not need. I have said it here before, I am by law required to buy maternity and pediatric care i will never use. How on earth is that "a fair thing to do?"
Quote: AZDuffmanThe extra money we spend in the USA is because we can get care far faster than can be gotten in Canada as has been proven time and time again. Like most Americans I will take the pre-Obamacare USA system over the Canadian one any day. What I do not get is why an outsider would care so much, other than misery loves company?
I care first off because I will likely be living in the USA again in a couple of years and it matters. Secondly, I care because there seems to be blinders on in the USA when you make the claim that any socialist system is by default a terrible one when it's clear that the system you have now is extremely expensive and unfair and with ObamaCare isn't getting better anytime soon.
American companies who offer health coverage to full time employees operate at a severe disadvantage because they are paying the bulk of your coverage at a cost of $4-$10/employee hour. So they pass this coverage and deductables to its employees and allows them to discriminate based on health. All of this erodes at the middle class, giving all of the governments with socialized healthcare a competitive advantage. Canada's minimum wage is around $10.25 an hour, and companies can afford to employ them full time and give them health coverage because it costs the company about $300/month to provide extended health care which covers the extras that the Canadian system doesn't cover and they can hire the elderly and people prone to illness (they don't ask the question) because they don't have to pay the cost -- it's shared among everyone.
And yeah, there are plenty of problems with the Canadian system. Some costs aren't covered (as Kenarman alluded to). Service is slow for some procedures, causing some people to jump the queue and run to another country for immediate relief as has been covered by your anecdotes. Canada works on a need basis, meaning that there are long waiting lists for things that are not serious (such as an allergy) and short waiting lists for life-threatening stuff (heart attacks, cancer, etc). And while it sucks to be you waiting, that is the cost of rationing health care. Other countries do much better while keeping costs low.
You say that the US health care system is great, but it's also terribly inefficient. Just because you get service right away doesn't mean it's great, because the system has to supply the system and infrastructure to do that. Paperwork is terribly inefficient because you are dealing with a multitude of providers with a multitude of rules which makes it more expensive. Malpractice insurance drives prices up because of your litiguous society. Pharmaceuticals are able to get away with charging exorbinent prices for meds under its patent laws, which drives the prices up. Insurance companies drive prices up because they add a layer of markup for all services. Most countries have done away with the middle-man and provide an insurance system that is provided by the government and paid by everyone's tax dollars. And I've done contract work for US insurance companies, and can tell you that their people are just as incompetent and inefficient as a government employee (without the benefits), except they charge double in order to provide a return to its shareholder and pay its executives.
The US has this unique opportunity to look at what all of the socialized countries are doing and take the best from every system to provide a health care system that is just as good and as better than all of the rest while driving down costs. Because of all of the special interest groups and their lobbying, the result was the shit-storm called ObamaCare. Us, we're stuck with the choices we made 40+ years ago.
Quote: AZDuffmanI do not disregard facts. I merely do not let a small number of cherry-picked "facts" decide things. We keep hearing "Canadians live longer" as if that is the sole measure of an effective health care system. But it disregards that Americans live more high-risk lives and the USA collects data in different ways. As to understanding the plan, I understand that it is a government hand-out and part of the Democrat Party's drive to single-payer, a terrible idea. I have not read the entire thing and feel no need to as Obama and the Democrats who passed it did not even read the bill before they passed it.
Canadians live longer. Its cancer survival rates are higher. Its birth mortality rates are lower. Most of its other health indicators are better than the US. I'm not cherry picking. And how do we collect data differently and live lower-risk lives?
So now I ask you, since the younger people currently pay nearly nothing and then when they age, they incur huge bills, wouldn't it make more sense to get everybody insured now and thereby paying for those huge future bills. Rather than have everyone else funding it? That would seem to be the fair thing to do. Why should I have gotten a free ride?Quote: AZDuffmanI do not disregard facts. I merely do not let a small number of cherry-picked "facts" decide things. We keep hearing "Canadians live longer" as if that is the sole measure of an effective health care system. But it disregards that Americans live more high-risk lives and the USA collects data in different ways. As to understanding the plan, I understand that it is a government hand-out and part of the Democrat Party's drive to single-payer, a terrible idea. I have not read the entire thing and feel no need to as Obama and the Democrats who passed it did not even read the bill before they passed it.
No, this does not make sense. Because as time goes by these programs always get cut back and those paying now will get a lower quality of care later. If people want insurance they can buy it. If an insurer wants to make some kind of "whole life health insurance" so you pay the flat rate all of your life then try that.
That is, in all honesty, a terrible response from you. So you are saying that everyone paying now will get a lower quality of care later? Really? You would know this how? Additionally, lets assume that your statement is correct, the fact that someone starts paying now for their future care has therefore no impact on this inevitable lower quality of care. It would have been more than fair if I had been forced into paying early, so that the medical bills that I incurred later in my life would been mostly paid for by me and not everyone else.
Lastly, really, a metric such as living longer carries no merit? LOLOL...unbelievable. Like I said you're just molding the facts to support your narrow sighted view. Sorry, but that's the plain 'ole truth.
