Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Hts121

Health Care

Recommended Posts

Good analogy, Dan-o  :?  I'll see if I can find my thinking cap.

 

Getting back on topic..... gotta give credit where credit is due.  Dubya had the golden opportunity to load the court up with 2 more Scalias.  But he only went with one (Alito).  While he has reached many decisions I strongly disagree with, Roberts has proved to be a true jurist who holds true to what he believes the law is regardless of partisan politics.  He has turned out to be a great choice for Chief Justice (despite his failed attempt to trip up Obama during the swearing in ceremony..... joking, it was not intentional, but very funny in from a geeky grammatical standpoint).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And on the whole, the people of Russia were satisfied with the Soviet Union for many years. 

 

You're not thinking.  How could they not be satisfied if they know of nothing else?

You're forgetting that a good portion of the british and canadian people remember their healthcare system before it became socialised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And on the whole, the people of Russia were satisfied with the Soviet Union for many years. 

 

 

OH NO the Russians, communists, socialists, healthcare....AAAAAAARRRRRRRHHHH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to have to disagree with DanB on this one.  I have tons of friends in Canada and they never have to "wait for a doctor."  It's the same shit there as it is here, just one is "'free' socialized medicine" and the other is "pay an arm and a leg for seeing a doctor about cramps."

 

A true way to measure a country's health system is life expectancy.  The life expectancy of OBAMERcare over in Canada is 80.7. Life expectancy of Pre-OBAMERcare over here in Amurrica is 78.2.  We trail Castro's Cuba, hot-as-hell United Arab Emirates, the Channel Islands (for Christ sakes, Jersey really?), Malta (!), Wynn-ing Macau, and even carb-loving Italy.  If Canada was truly in peril from their socialized medicine, they'd have reformed it immediately.  Clearly, statistically, it's working.  Same with other socialized medicine countries such as Sweden, Norway, or even in partially-socialized Germany.

 

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

 

While I don't agree with everything in ObamaCare, it's a start and will help out many people tremendously.


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone see Mean Jean's reaction to what she thought was the Supreme Court overturning Obamacare?

 

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/28/msnbc-captures-jean-schmidt-outside-supreme-court/

 

Also there's an alarming number of people on twitter today saying they are going to move to Canada because of socialism and 'Obamacare'

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare?fb_action_ids=10151041018746343&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline

 

----

 

Its incredible that the individual mandate is a GOP IDEA through and through (Has been for decades). The individual mandate, which many GOPers declare as "Socialism", was created by the Heritage foundation with the mantra of "Personal responsibility".  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/28/individual-health-care-insurance-mandate-has-long-checkered-past/ . But now since Obama is for it, it must be Marxism

 

Obamacare is basically Romneycare which is basically Dolecare which is basically Nixoncare...All with years of support from the GOP.  One thing is for certain.  I'll be watching more FoxNews tonight then I have in the last 2 years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Jean Schmidt wailing in misguided joy is icing on this big fat healthy cake. Who reacts like that? You'd think she was terminally ill and just granted health insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to be so cynical, but part of me really thinks that Justice Roberts came to this decision with at least a partially political motive in mind.  Think about how energized the right is going to be because of this ruling heading into November's Presidential election. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Via http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/06/obamacare-survives-your-thoughts.html:

 

(1) I am absolutely overjoyed that the Court has upheld the Affordable Care Act, and that the vision of universal coverage is closer today than it was yesterday.

 

(2) As a long term legal matter, Chief Justice Roberts: (a) now has himself a previously non-existent limit on Congress's Commerce clause power, and (b) a perviously unrecognized limit on Congress's Spending Clause power. He will have these limits at his disposal over his next 20+ years as leader of the Roberts Court.

 

(3) As political matter, his maneuvering was absolutely genius. He has (a) protected the institution of the Court; (b) forced Obama and the Democrats in Congress to acknowledge that the mandate is a tax and, thus, they have raised taxes on earners under $250,000; and © ensured that, as a tax, the mandate can be repealed by reconciliation - i.e., a bare majority of both Houses and the signature of a Republican President.

 

Roberts got his limitation on federal power and got to ingeniously play the political game without receiving any fault for doing so. And, most importantly, the uninsured will now get insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Interesting theories, regardless of whether it is intentional or conveniently coincidental.  I hadn't thought about the reconciliation angle.  That would make it easier to repeal.  However, I will take a repeal over a complete obliteration.  If we had to start from scratch again, it would be another 50 years before we did anything.  Any repeal is going to have to include a replacement plan,,,,it's not like they are gong to go back to the old letter of the law (as would have been the case if the ACA was struck down today)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Good luck with that, Mitt.  60 votes if you want to discuss any significant changes.  That's the standard your party has set, unfortunately

 

After seeing the impact on campaign donations by corporate entities, I don't think it's implausible at all to consider Republicans could take back the Senate.  We've already seen what can happen when one side outspends the other by 3-1 or more...  I think the backlash from the business sector on this will be something that Democrats totally underestimated.

 

Again, they need to do more than "take back" the Senate.  A supermajority is needed now.

 

 

 

“With a 50-vote majority in the Senate, Republicans could do the same thing Democrats did with 50 votes on Obamacare — and that is to use the reconciliation process — to reverse the more onerous provisions of Obamacare and replace them with what Republicans have been talking about,” Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said.

 

Of course, a lot has to go right for Republicans between now and then.

 

Obama would have to lose the White House, Republicans would have to pick up three Senate seats — and hold the House — and the GOP would have to show 100 percent unity if it was serious about repealing a law that has been found constitutional by the Supreme Court.

 

On top of that, some budget experts believe not every part of the health care law could be repealed using the simple-majority rules of reconciliation — only the parts that have a direct budget impact. Still, major portions, including the individual mandate, could be targeted by reconciliation."

 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/78002.html#ixzz1zBsvJkK9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused by the Republican's (specifically Mitt Romney's) stance on the ACA.  When speaking about the courts decision to uphold the law Mitt Romney predictably stated that the best course of action for America was to repeal and replace the ACA.  But then he started rattling off the things that he would not change because they really do help people.  He would not eliminate the Medicaid expansion, pre-existing conditions clause, the 26 year old rule, or a host of other provisions in the bill.  The only thing that he specifically said he would undo is the individual mandate.  So, it appears the only thing the fiscally conservative Republican candidate for President wants to eliminate is the thing that actually pays for all of it and forces individual responsibility.  It must be an election year!  You can have all the goodies AND we won't charge you for them!  Then they go out and say they want to eliminate it because it's a "tax on the middle class".  I'm sorry, no it's not.  It's a tax on free loaders. 

 

I feel like I'm in the twilight zone.  Weren't these exact same arguments being made 20 years ago only with the Republicans pushing for the individual mandate?  And which party is supposed to contain all the budget hawks and fiscal conservatives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point about Canada was not that everyone is up in arms about it.  They love it. They've never had a wonderful system like ours.  Yes, everybody gets the same almost adequate care.  My story was not anectodal, it happened to me.  There is not much incentive for Docs to go into the profession as their salaries are not very high.  There is a shortage of doctors in Canada.  As I said before, I want my docs to make a lot of money.

 

Yes, everyone gets care, but sometimes they have to wait.  Waiting 6 weeks for an MRI is expected and the norm, so no one complains.  I like to have more control over mine and my family's health care.

 

Here's another story that happened recently to me, those of you who want to say it never happened, fine.  My generation was used to calling the doctor day or night if a child was sick, and if the doctor wasnt in, an answering service picked up and directed the call to whomever was on-call that evening.

 

About a month ago, my grandson (1yo) had a fever and after trying all the common things, we couldn't get it down.  I told her to call the Dr., no one was in, and the message said to go to Children's hosp.  When we got there, the entire waiting room was filled with sick children, but none that we could see had any kind of an injury.  According to the nurse, it was like that every night because doctors aren't available and people use the ER as an office.

 

The costs associated with these worthless trips to the ER clearly cannot be contained long term.  This is whats happening to our health care.  I don't like it, and as your children get sick and you cannot get care you are used too, then you won't like it either.  Worrying about the person without insurance will seem unimportant to you when you are talking about your family.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worrying about the person without insurance will seem unimportant to you when you are talking about your family.

 

Unless it's your family who doesn't have insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a fair point, but our current system doesn't turn people away from hospitals either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current system turns people away from insurance, even if they're willing, able, and happy to pay for it.  Walking into the ER with insurance is a whole different ballgame than walking in there without it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that.  I never said that some things shouldn't be changed. I just want to limit the government involvment in it.

 

People are taken in emergency rooms based on need, not insurance.  That is completely untrue.  No one is turned away in an emergency situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That wasn't my point.  Going to the ER without insurance could cause such financial ruin that it sets your family back for generations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't understand conservatives way of thinking in nominating the one man who was essentially the creator of Obamacare to run against Obamacare.  Rick Santorum is/was wrong about a lot of things, but he was dead on with this argument about Romney. 

 

There are good arguments for and against the ACA, but relying on a guy, who implemented it successfully making it wildly popular in his state,  to repeal it seems so bizarre.  Especially when you consider the fact that the individual mandate was a conservative idea championed for decades to begin with.  It was thought of as 'personal responsibility' all through the 90's by these same conservatives screaming "Socialism" today

 

Conservatives have an argument in regards to the  George Stephanapolous's interview with Obama where Obama vehemently denied it was a tax increase.  However, they can't really take advantage of it because Romney said the EXACT SAME THING in an interview http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/romney-acknowledges-his-healthcare-plan-imposed-a-tax-in-08/ . How Romney got the nomination is beyond me

 

Politics is just bizarre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the system is not perfect.

 

Hey, another anectdotal story, as I know everyone enjoys them!  The same person in Canada who finally got her own Dr. after years of waiting, and was so happy about it (hated she couldn't get a Dr, but just loves her health care plan), could not believe that my daughter was held responsible for the car accident she caused!

 

In Canada, everyone's car insurance just pays to fix their own car!  No-fault insurance!  Just great.  Make no one responsible, make someone else pay for it, and then everyone's insurance goes up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has an audit ever been done on any hospital? Maybe the government should staff one person at each hospital to make sure there are no more abuses.

If this plan is to be successful it needs to cut down on fraud and overspending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^what's so bizarre about it?  Based on all the Obama ads attacking Romney's record as Governor, apparently his healthcare program in Massachusetts did nothing but run up the debt & kill job creation... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Walking into the ER with insurance is a whole different ballgame than walking in there without it.

 

Well you still usually end up owing huge sums of money even if you do have insurance.  I went into the Good Sam ER a few years ago, they scanned my insurance card, then lost the record of that scan.  So I got a bill for $2,700.  I called the insurance company and they declared that I still owed $1,700.  Then miscellaneous bills in the $75-125 range kept trickling in even after insurance had "settled" it.  I was pretty sure they were fraudulent bills and one or two of them were. 

 

DanB, this is the best health care system in the world, when there is so much room for fraud? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Correction.... hospitals may collect half as much when treating an indigent.... but surgeries for people with insurance are SIGNIFICANTLY less costly than surgeries for people without insurance.  Take a look at your hospital bill.  You will see significant write-offs and adjustments the hospital has given to your insurance provider that you wouldn't get if you don't have insurance.  We're talking 60%-80% in many cases.  Insurance companies only pay a fraction of the bill originally charged.  They have the buying power to negotiate the rates down with hospitals.

 

But also see this article about how the cash cost is often even lower -- because the insured are the ones paying for the uninsured.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/27/business/la-fi-medical-prices-20120527

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DanB, this is the best health care system in the world, when there is so much room for fraud? 

 

Yes, as was stated previously in this thread, that is what happens when government gets overly involved.  I think the post used tuition costs skyrocketing when loans became so easily attainable, and the home market when everyone was approved for homes.  Do you believe this will help eliminate or help increase fraud and costs?  I see both of them going up.

 

Yes, I believe we have the best health care system, the administration of it sucks! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The American health care system is the best in the world...if you're rich.  For the rest of us, I'll take the commie Canadian health care.


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^what's so bizarre about it?  Based on all the Obama ads attacking Romney's record as Governor, apparently his healthcare program in Massachusetts did nothing but run up the debt & kill job creation...

 

I just don't understanding the line of thinking.  Mitt Romney is the architect of the tax hike that Republicans plan to make central to the campaign this year.  It would be like Donald Trump declaring war on combovers

 

In fact, it gets worse from a GOP PR standpoint.  RomneyCare actually covers undocumented illegals and abortions in Massachusetts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The American health care system is the best in the world...if you're rich.  For the rest of us, I'll take the commie Canadian health care.

 

First, not only the rich have good health care!  Very many people have adequate health care in the most menial positions.

 

I suppose you prefer a system of inadequate care, as long as everyone gets treated the same?  :wink2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose you prefer a system of inadequate care, as long as everyone gets treated the same?  :wink2:

 

If the only way for you to have what you want is for me to have nothing, you can't expect me to like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opponents of the law - Danb and gottaplan, for example - would you at least agree that the individual mandate embraces the concept of individual responsibility and is essential for bringing the health care costs down for everyone and getting everyone the health insurance they need?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A true way to measure a country's health system is life expectancy. 

 

That doesn't measure the quality of health care, that's more reflective of health.  Americans are, in general, among the least healthy of all societies.  That's more of the problem than actual health care or insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, not the way the government is involved.  I think the costs can only go up.  I really don't see it anyway.

 

 

8 of the top 10 poorest states are solid red states...you should move to one of em big DAN!

 

You have a little problem with opinions?  You sound like the guys who were yelling at us while we protested the Vietnam war,  "America, love it or leave it".

 

I like it right where I am.  Besides, I'm not poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the monies collected from the "tax/fine" will go into a fund to help pay for the costs the uninsured would otherwise push on the rest of us.

 

As far as the general question of "where is the money coming from"... you would have to be more specific.  What money?

 

A large population is now getting health insurance.  Someone is going to pay for their care.  Ideally it would be them, but based on their income, that tax/fine/fee for insurance can be waived.  If not paid by the presently uninsured, that cost is going to be passed on somewhere.  Budget reports expects $400 billion in additional tax revenues.  So that's either $400 billion coming from the currently uninsured or $400 Billion coming from the existing base of insured people.  Likely a blend of both.  Either way, a large portion of that $400 billion is coming from the middle class.

 

An additional $500 million in funding has been given to the IRS to adiminister ACA.  That money is also coming from new taxes associated with the bill. 

 

In total, there are 18 provisions in the law for new revenues, now clearly labeled as taxes.

 

All that said, the total program is still under funded.  The latest CBO report projects this program to add an additional $1.2 trillion to the national debt. (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf)

 

Health Care is a complicated issue and there's a lot more to it than affordable health insurance.  It may actually be cheaper to pay people to be heathier than to insure the entire population.  Want a free $100/month?  Go to the gym 4 days a week and the government will pay you.  Honestly, that would be a better program than ACA.  Obsiety is a much bigger problem in the US than health insurance.

 

More over, this bill is really complex.  I doubt anyone truly comprehends the entire bill and certainly very few in Congress who passed this bill actually have read the whole thing and understand it.  Why approach a complicated problem with an even more complicated solution?  There's a few provisions which clearly make sense, but the majority of it is either not a good idea or hard to really even understand what it's getting at.  This impacts health insurance, not health or health care itself.  I don't think taking more money from people to address a faction of the an overall problem for a policy that we're not quite sure works is a poor approach solving a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused by the Republican's (specifically Mitt Romney's) stance on the ACA.  When speaking about the courts decision to uphold the law Mitt Romney predictably stated that the best course of action for America was to repeal and replace the ACA.  But then he started rattling off the things that he would not change because they really do help people.  He would not eliminate the Medicaid expansion, pre-existing conditions clause, the 26 year old rule, or a host of other provisions in the bill.  The only thing that he specifically said he would undo is the individual mandate.  So, it appears the only thing the fiscally conservative Republican candidate for President wants to eliminate is the thing that actually pays for all of it and forces individual responsibility.  It must be an election year!  You can have all the goodies AND we won't charge you for them!  Then they go out and say they want to eliminate it because it's a "tax on the middle class".  I'm sorry, no it's not.  It's a tax on free loaders. 

 

I feel like I'm in the twilight zone.  Weren't these exact same arguments being made 20 years ago only with the Republicans pushing for the individual mandate?  And which party is supposed to contain all the budget hawks and fiscal conservatives?

 

I agree, there is some odd role reversal going on here.

 

I understand and empathize with those that don't like the individual mandate.  I think a fair compromise would be to allow for people to opt-out. Explain to them the consequences of their decision to opt-out/refuse to purchase health care and then most importantly HOLD THEM TO IT.  Meaning if one decides to opt-out and that same person gets hit by a bus or develops cancer with no insurance coverage, then they cannot ask for any help with the bills from the American taxpayers.  It may seem a bit cruel, but I'm sorry, such cases are a big expensive problem and if you're not paying in then you should not be insured against such circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Interesting theories, regardless of whether it is intentional or conveniently coincidental.  I hadn't thought about the reconciliation angle.  That would make it easier to repeal.  However, I will take a repeal over a complete obliteration.  If we had to start from scratch again, it would be another 50 years before we did anything.  Any repeal is going to have to include a replacement plan,,,,it's not like they are gong to go back to the old letter of the law (as would have been the case if the ACA was struck down today)

 

This is an interesting point and something that I've worried about a bit.  I think that it's inevitable that at some point this decade the Republicans will have the majority in Congress/the Presidency necessary to repeal this thing.  My concern is that they'll simply repeal it without giving us something that addresses the problems with the system prior to March 23, 2010.

 

For the conservatives on this thread, I'd love to know what, if any, solutions you would suggest for the Republicans to include in a new healthcare bill if they repeal ObomneyCare?  Anything to address monthly premium costs for the middle class or folks with pre-existing conditions?  How about portability of plans?  What are some things that can be done to increase coverage but that would also be fair to the middle class?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opponents of the law - Danb and gottaplan, for example - would you at least agree that the individual mandate embraces the concept of individual responsibility and is essential for bringing the health care costs down for everyone and getting everyone the health insurance they need?

 

Can I infer from the silence of those who have responded subsequent to this question being posted that you all are in agreement with the above??

 

 

 

I doubt anyone truly comprehends the entire bill

 

Yet, the rest of your post would have us believe otherwise...

 

Now you want to fine/tax people for not going to the gym?  Because that is what that would be if you refuse to give them money (surely in the form of tax breaks/credits) if they don't comply with your exercise regime.  Not that I am against the plan, but can you imagine the reaction from the right if Michelle Obama proposes this?  Sheesh.... all she wanted to do is encourage healthy eating and exercise among kids and has been attacked for it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, not the way the government is involved.  I think the costs can only go up.  I really don't see it anyway.

 

Don't let it go to your head Hts, as I believe the above was in response to your post.  The last words there should be any other way.  I do find it hard to believe that someone as smart as you cannot see this plan costing the middle class a lot of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply.... at least shs96 and gottaplan are in agreement.... you'll come around by November ;)

 

He has ways of making me talk!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't let it go to your head Hts, as I believe the above was in response to your post.  The last words there should be any other way.  I do find it hard to believe that someone as smart as you cannot see this plan costing the middle class a lot of money.

 

What are some other solutions that you WOULD support?

 

A lot of middle class folks were already paying hundreds of dollars a month in health insurance premiums if they were buying insurance out-of-pocket.  And if they weren't buying insurance, but they were getting sick or injured, then they were costing everyone else money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've already said the program needs some changes.  I have no problem with changes.  I agree, everybody needs some amount of care. I just don't want the government to run it.

 

I pay for my own health insurance.  My ONLY 2 retirement benefits from P&G is 1) and annual holiday basket which they have been giving out for well over 120 years.  Well, no, let me correct that, they have only been giving out holiday baskets for a few years.  They used to be Christmas baskets.

 

and 2) The priveledge of buying my own health insurance through P&G.  I pay hundreds a month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opponents of the law - Danb and gottaplan, for example - would you at least agree that the individual mandate embraces the concept of individual responsibility and is essential for bringing the health care costs down for everyone and getting everyone the health insurance they need?

 

Can I infer from the silence of those who have responded subsequent to this question being posted that you all are in agreement with the above??

 

 

No I wouldn't agree with that.  There are no incentives built into the program.  Same as every other govt aid program, once you get on, they never want you to get off.  If you qualify for health insurance through this new pool, great.  Stay on for the rest of your life.  Where's the individual responsibility in that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first video shows a March 2006 news conference, in which then-Gov. Romney said, “With regards to the individual mandate, the individual responsibility program that I proposed, I was very pleased that the compromise between the two houses includes the personal responsibility mandate.”  In a television clip of the event,  Mr. Romney called the Massachusetts requirement that people buy health-care coverage “essential for bringing the health care costs down for everyone and getting everyone the health insurance they need.”

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/06/28/videos-from-2006-show-romney-defending-health-care-mandate/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...