Obamacare
Options
Replies
-
Hold on Mandy,,, clarify this please. You say:
And then you say:The scariest part is, there are so many people who are considered "poor" that make too much to qualify for medicaid (such as myself) yet don't make enough to pay for insurance.I'm glad I only pay $30 a month for my basic medical. Are they going to require that I get dental and vision now?
Do you have insurance or don't you? And if you have basic medical for $30 a month, who is your carrier. I got to get on that one.
It's scary for those who don't qualify>
My employer pays all but $15 a check for my plan. Then again, our company employees 2 people and did not qualify for a group rate. The volunteer board of directors doesn't expect us to pay that difference and the company can afford to pay the difference. Technically, I'm supposed to pay my son's portion but my boss worked it out for me that they cover it as well. It would have been like $500 a month for me if not.
Without my employer covering my insurance, my plan would cost me close to $600/month. I make too much to qualify for medicaid so if my employer didn't cover that, I would be uninsured. I live paycheck to paycheck, if I was force to get the individual plan for $600 a month, I would have to quit my job and live off welfare. I simply could not afford it, though it would now be required by law.0 -
At least they are finally calling the mandate what it is. A tax.
Let's see how Obama tap dances around the tax increase on the lower and middle class he said was not going to happen.0 -
Why Justice Roberts, you so rarely make my day a more pleasant one. Thanks for this exception.
Cheers.0 -
Why Justice Roberts, you so rarely make my day a more pleasant one. Thanks for this exception.
Cheers.
heh.. Pretty ironic considering Obama, Biden, and Reid all voted against him.0 -
Why Justice Roberts, you so rarely make my day a more pleasant one. Thanks for this exception.
Cheers.
I can only imagine he's getting Tea Partier death threats at this point. They've got to view this as a betrayal. I admit, I'm shocked myself!0 -
And as this ruling comes, watch the stock market drop!
http://www.marketwatch.com/tools/marketsummary/indices/indices.asp?indexid=1&groupid=370 -
And as this ruling comes, watch the stock market drop!
http://www.marketwatch.com/tools/marketsummary/indices/indices.asp?indexid=1&groupid=37
How is today any different then the rest of the year with regards to the stock market?
0 -
And as this ruling comes, watch the stock market drop!
http://www.marketwatch.com/tools/marketsummary/indices/indices.asp?indexid=1&groupid=37
Random, unjustified, paranoid fear has been ruling the stock market for awhile now. I could sneeze and give a broker a cold and it could make the market drop if everyone else feared getting the plague as a result.0 -
And as this ruling comes, watch the stock market drop!
http://www.marketwatch.com/tools/marketsummary/indices/indices.asp?indexid=1&groupid=37
Random, unjustified, paranoid fear has been ruling the stock market for awhile now. I could sneeze and give a broker a cold and it could make the market drop if everyone else feared getting the plague as a result.
I know, I just find it amusing.0 -
Horrible, horrible, horrible decision. I can't believe Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan actually argue in favor of the mandate being constitutional under the commerce clause. It's stunningly absurd. The government can compel you enter into a market because everyone is already in the market and therefore the federal government can regulate the very market they have to compel you to join. It's beyond absurd.
This sums it up perfectly (from the dissent):
"One might argue that it regulates that failure by requiring it to be accompanied by payment of a penalty. But that failure—that abstention from commerce—is not “Commerce.” To be sure, purchasing insurance is ”Commerce”; but one does not regulate commerce that does not exist by compelling its existence."
And John Roberts.... oh boy.... whether or not Congress *could* have written the law to be a tax is irrelevant. The SCOTUS cannot just change the law to "what would have been constitutional had it been written this way the first time." It's not a tax, it was never a tax, and wanting it to be a tax doesn't make it a tax.0 -
From the dissent: "We never have classified as a tax an exaction imposed for violation of the law, and so too, we never have classified as a tax an exaction described in the legislation itself as a penalty."
I guess we do now :frown:0 -
I don't have an informed opinion about Obamacare; however, I think there are a lot of misconceptions about "socialized" medicine. I live in Canada, and in my experience the people who complain about healthcare here are those who don't get exactly what they want, right when they want it. Some of those people will chose to go south of the border and pay cash for what they want. On the other hand, through three very serious health issues with close family, (brain cancer, catastophic accident, child with encephalitis which turned out to be a metabolic disorder that is now being treated by the chief neurologist at Sick Kids hospital in Toronto) I have seen excellent care and access to top specialists without having to clear everything done through an insurance company. I am aware of at least one medical specialist from here who was courted for many years by an American hospital and finally went, but lasted only a few months because he quickly became frustrated by dealing with HMO's and insurance people. Yes, sometimes more serious problems will bump elective procedures, and there are problems, as with any system, but like the poster from the UK I believe the system here is better than some would have you believe. I have a GP with whom I can get an appointment easily, a walk in clinic where I can get help (like a tetanus shot when I stepped on a nail a couple of weeks ago) quickly, and no worries about pulling out a credit card to pay for it. I know, I know, I do pay through my taxes. I just wanted to dispel some of the notions people seem to get about how our system works.
Excellent perspective from someone living in a system of available healthcare AND dealing with the real American medical culprits - greedy insurance companies. Severly limiting that middleman is a good thing and puts their greedy butts on notice. I'm less worried about additional taxes than about the already ridiculous premiums and copays I shell out each year for medical treatment. Taxes buy me services that I like: clean water, paved roads, tornado sirens, fire and police. I wouldn't mind at all paying additional for health care AND my medical team (who helps me through this weight loss journey) would be able to put their three staff that deal with insurance billing to work doing more productive things toward better health. As for federal government resources, we could certainly spend more on better diplomacy efforts and much less on the machine of war. There is plenty of US resources to invest in America's greatest asset, her people - most of whom cannot afford medical care as it is currently set up.
-Debra0 -
I don't have an informed opinion about Obamacare; however, I think there are a lot of misconceptions about "socialized" medicine. I live in Canada, and in my experience the people who complain about healthcare here are those who don't get exactly what they want, right when they want it. Some of those people will chose to go south of the border and pay cash for what they want. On the other hand, through three very serious health issues with close family, (brain cancer, catastophic accident, child with encephalitis which turned out to be a metabolic disorder that is now being treated by the chief neurologist at Sick Kids hospital in Toronto) I have seen excellent care and access to top specialists without having to clear everything done through an insurance company. I am aware of at least one medical specialist from here who was courted for many years by an American hospital and finally went, but lasted only a few months because he quickly became frustrated by dealing with HMO's and insurance people. Yes, sometimes more serious problems will bump elective procedures, and there are problems, as with any system, but like the poster from the UK I believe the system here is better than some would have you believe. I have a GP with whom I can get an appointment easily, a walk in clinic where I can get help (like a tetanus shot when I stepped on a nail a couple of weeks ago) quickly, and no worries about pulling out a credit card to pay for it. I know, I know, I do pay through my taxes. I just wanted to dispel some of the notions people seem to get about how our system works.
Excellent perspective from someone living in a system of available healthcare AND dealing with the real American medical culprits - greedy insurance companies.
If the culprits are greedy insurance companies, then what are the hospitals that charge $36 for a tylenol?
Does everyone really think hospitals are going to lower the costs of their services now? What about people who have insurance but don't pay their share of the bill after the insurance portion. Hell, I have calls daily from my son's surgery that I got sent a several thousand dollar bill for. Even though I have insurance, I still live paycheck to paycheck and will probably have to pay $30 a month the rest of my live for a simple procedure.
I just DON'T see how this is going to solve the problem..0 -
I don't have an informed opinion about Obamacare; however, I think there are a lot of misconceptions about "socialized" medicine. I live in Canada, and in my experience the people who complain about healthcare here are those who don't get exactly what they want, right when they want it. Some of those people will chose to go south of the border and pay cash for what they want. On the other hand, through three very serious health issues with close family, (brain cancer, catastophic accident, child with encephalitis which turned out to be a metabolic disorder that is now being treated by the chief neurologist at Sick Kids hospital in Toronto) I have seen excellent care and access to top specialists without having to clear everything done through an insurance company. I am aware of at least one medical specialist from here who was courted for many years by an American hospital and finally went, but lasted only a few months because he quickly became frustrated by dealing with HMO's and insurance people. Yes, sometimes more serious problems will bump elective procedures, and there are problems, as with any system, but like the poster from the UK I believe the system here is better than some would have you believe. I have a GP with whom I can get an appointment easily, a walk in clinic where I can get help (like a tetanus shot when I stepped on a nail a couple of weeks ago) quickly, and no worries about pulling out a credit card to pay for it. I know, I know, I do pay through my taxes. I just wanted to dispel some of the notions people seem to get about how our system works.
Excellent perspective from someone living in a system of available healthcare AND dealing with the real American medical culprits - greedy insurance companies.
If the culprits are greedy insurance companies, then what are the hospitals that charge $36 for a tylenol?
Does everyone really think hospitals are going to lower the costs of their services now? What about people who have insurance but don't pay their share of the bill after the insurance portion. Hell, I have calls daily from my son's surgery that I got sent a several thousand dollar bill for. Even though I have insurance, I still live paycheck to paycheck and will probably have to pay $30 a month the rest of my live for a simple procedure.
I just DON'T see how this is going to solve the problem..
Why do you think the hospital charges $36 for a tylenol? It is to make up for the cost of the uninsured not paying for the procedures that they require.0 -
I don't have an informed opinion about Obamacare; however, I think there are a lot of misconceptions about "socialized" medicine. I live in Canada, and in my experience the people who complain about healthcare here are those who don't get exactly what they want, right when they want it. Some of those people will chose to go south of the border and pay cash for what they want. On the other hand, through three very serious health issues with close family, (brain cancer, catastophic accident, child with encephalitis which turned out to be a metabolic disorder that is now being treated by the chief neurologist at Sick Kids hospital in Toronto) I have seen excellent care and access to top specialists without having to clear everything done through an insurance company. I am aware of at least one medical specialist from here who was courted for many years by an American hospital and finally went, but lasted only a few months because he quickly became frustrated by dealing with HMO's and insurance people. Yes, sometimes more serious problems will bump elective procedures, and there are problems, as with any system, but like the poster from the UK I believe the system here is better than some would have you believe. I have a GP with whom I can get an appointment easily, a walk in clinic where I can get help (like a tetanus shot when I stepped on a nail a couple of weeks ago) quickly, and no worries about pulling out a credit card to pay for it. I know, I know, I do pay through my taxes. I just wanted to dispel some of the notions people seem to get about how our system works.
Excellent perspective from someone living in a system of available healthcare AND dealing with the real American medical culprits - greedy insurance companies.
If the culprits are greedy insurance companies, then what are the hospitals that charge $36 for a tylenol?
Does everyone really think hospitals are going to lower the costs of their services now? What about people who have insurance but don't pay their share of the bill after the insurance portion. Hell, I have calls daily from my son's surgery that I got sent a several thousand dollar bill for. Even though I have insurance, I still live paycheck to paycheck and will probably have to pay $30 a month the rest of my live for a simple procedure.
I just DON'T see how this is going to solve the problem..
Why do you think the hospital charges $36 for a tylenol? It is to make up for the cost of the uninsured not paying for the procedures that they require.
I know, but insurance doesn't cover 100%, there will still be people not paying their portions. For example, my son has his tonsils out in March and I just got a bill for $4000 after my insurance covered the rest. I can't even afford the monthly payments of $270 that they want me to pay. How is forcing people to have insurance going to change that?
Not to mention many doctors DON'T accept medicaid because of the reimbursment. I live in the 4th or 5th largest city in Indiana and there are NO OB/GYNs that accept medicaid. Pregnant women here have to drive and hour to Indy for care.
Those costs are not going to change.0 -
Well hopefully now, instead of focusing how it can be blocked, villified, and repealed our elected officials can work on making it something that most can be satisfied with. Oh, wait, Romney already has plans to have it repealed.
But seriously, officials are in office to work on and possibly solve problems, not hinder those who are trying to address them. I think there are things that can make this plan better, but everyone does not have my same needs, so I can accept a compromise. I just want those in office to WORK on dealing with an issue instead of pushing it along and only planning their reelection strategy. They do that really well though, if only other issues could have the same amount of attention.0 -
I don't have an informed opinion about Obamacare; however, I think there are a lot of misconceptions about "socialized" medicine. I live in Canada, and in my experience the people who complain about healthcare here are those who don't get exactly what they want, right when they want it. Some of those people will chose to go south of the border and pay cash for what they want. On the other hand, through three very serious health issues with close family, (brain cancer, catastophic accident, child with encephalitis which turned out to be a metabolic disorder that is now being treated by the chief neurologist at Sick Kids hospital in Toronto) I have seen excellent care and access to top specialists without having to clear everything done through an insurance company. I am aware of at least one medical specialist from here who was courted for many years by an American hospital and finally went, but lasted only a few months because he quickly became frustrated by dealing with HMO's and insurance people. Yes, sometimes more serious problems will bump elective procedures, and there are problems, as with any system, but like the poster from the UK I believe the system here is better than some would have you believe. I have a GP with whom I can get an appointment easily, a walk in clinic where I can get help (like a tetanus shot when I stepped on a nail a couple of weeks ago) quickly, and no worries about pulling out a credit card to pay for it. I know, I know, I do pay through my taxes. I just wanted to dispel some of the notions people seem to get about how our system works.
Excellent perspective from someone living in a system of available healthcare AND dealing with the real American medical culprits - greedy insurance companies.
If the culprits are greedy insurance companies, then what are the hospitals that charge $36 for a tylenol?
Does everyone really think hospitals are going to lower the costs of their services now? What about people who have insurance but don't pay their share of the bill after the insurance portion. Hell, I have calls daily from my son's surgery that I got sent a several thousand dollar bill for. Even though I have insurance, I still live paycheck to paycheck and will probably have to pay $30 a month the rest of my live for a simple procedure.
I just DON'T see how this is going to solve the problem..
Why do you think the hospital charges $36 for a tylenol? It is to make up for the cost of the uninsured not paying for the procedures that they require.
that does play a role, but not nearly as big as:
1-Malpractice insurance
2-Lack of reimbursement from government programs such as medicare etc.
3-Lack of true competition. How many people with insurance actually shop the hospital that has the best price for the service provided? Most people don't because their insurance flips most of the bill.
4-Lack of competition in the insurance market. Selling across state lines would help this out a lot.
Government was not the answer to this, this will cause prices to go up even more. Then some lefty will push for a single payer system that will destroy the quality of care we currently have access to.0 -
In 2004, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office calculated malpractice costs amounted to “less than 2 percent of overall health care spending. Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small.”
http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf
I'll agree about pricing for services, but I'm not sure how realistic that can be with med care. It's easy to compare the Ford sedan to the Chevy sedan - all the info is available and you have time to make a decision. But no hospital has a menu that says "Appendectomy - $7,995". And even if they did,,, once your appendix is ruptured could you really make that decision before sepsis sets in?
Market forces don't work well with medical care. That's why sedans are cheap and appendectomys are expensive.
Most consumers don't get to choose their med insurance providers either. Most of us just accept the turkey our employers offer. In my household case we both have coverage available, and recently dropped mine and picked up hers as it was better coverage for us. OTOH - employers do comparison shop, but their interests are not always the same as the insured's interests. The employer may just be looking for the cheapest plan without regard to how lousy the coverage is. Hmmm.0 -
In 2004, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office calculated malpractice costs amounted to “less than 2 percent of overall health care spending. Thus, even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small.”
http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf
I'll agree about pricing for services, but I'm not sure how realistic that can be with med care. It's easy to compare the Ford sedan to the Chevy sedan - all the info is available and you have time to make a decision. But no hospital has a menu that says "Appendectomy - $7,995". And even if they did,,, once your appendix is ruptured could you really make that decision before sepsis sets in?
Market forces don't work well with medical care. That's why sedans are cheap and appendectomys are expensive.
Most consumers don't get to choose their med insurance providers either. Most of us just accept the turkey our employers offer. In my household case we both have coverage available, and recently dropped mine and picked up hers as it was better coverage for us. OTOH - employers do comparison shop, but their interests are not always the same as the insured's interests. The employer may just be looking for the cheapest plan without regard to how lousy the coverage is. Hmmm.
I guess we differ on what the free market can do. Is it any coincidence that the prices have been rising more and more along with increasing government interference? I believe the problem has been caused because of gov intervention, not the lack of.
Market forces would work if there were true market forces at work. As I stated, we don't have true competition with insurance coverage and hospital care. This is because consumer choice is limited. Prices will only be as high as people are willing to pay. right now, there is no incentive to find the cheapest dr because most people don't have skin in the game.
Even if an emergency does happen like what you described, you can go on a payment plan. If not, then bankruptcy is an option. I realize that may sound heartless, but life isn't fair and people have bad things happen to them.
But aside from all of this, the law has given the feds an unbelievable amount of power. They can force us to do anything as long as they slap a tax on the activity.0 -
,,,,,,,
Even if an emergency does happen like what you described, you can go on a payment plan. If not, then bankruptcy is an option. I realize that may sound heartless, but life isn't fair and people have bad things happen to them.,,,,,,,,
Folks filing bankruptcy and walking away from million dollar cancer treatment bills are a big part of why care is so expensive now. It's a sticky wicket - idinit?0
