Obamacare
Options
Replies
-
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.
I believe you can apply this to every aspect of government. The more they get involved in world affairs, the more broke we are. The more they get involved in education, the less money education has. The more more money they print, the less the value of the dollar becomes. The more they get involved in social issues, the less free we become..
Big government is a terrible thing and this ruling just gave/confirmed the govornment's ultimate power.0 -
Ok, big question. What are illegals going to do? How are they going to get insurance being illegal? And if they go to the hospital without insurance, will they be reported and deported? Or will they continue to be 'no-pay' also?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?
One of the reasons, but not as big as the others I mentioned. Politicians talk about how people can't afford treatment etc. I was laying out an option for them personally.
Every industry gets hit with bankruptcies, Its the risk of doing business. Besides, businesses can write a good chuck of these losses off. These losses don't just get passed onto the next guy.0 -
Ok, big question. What are illegals going to do? How are they going to get insurance being illegal? And if they go to the hospital without insurance, will they be reported and deported? Or will they continue to be 'no-pay' also?
They should be, but it won't happen. The PC crowd won't let anyone talk about how much they burden the system.0 -
Ok, big question. What are illegals going to do? How are they going to get insurance being illegal? And if they go to the hospital without insurance, will they be reported and deported? Or will they continue to be 'no-pay' also?
If they are entitled to everything else that citizens pay for, why would health care be any different?0 -
,,,,,,,,,Every industry gets hit with bankruptcies, Its the risk of doing business. Besides, businesses can write a good chuck of these losses off. These losses don't just get passed onto the next guy.
"Write a good chuck of those losses off",,, that's strictly a tax writeoff. Many medical care providers are getting 30% or 40% of their revenue from the fed from Medicare-Medicaid-S-chip programs etc. Writing stuff off just takes money from the fed that's paying the bill - and therefore it is passed on to the taxpayer aka 'the next guy' - (aka, you and me :grumble: ).
One industry getting hit by 42% of all bankruptcies filed has got to take a chunk.
0 -
Really, I don't believe that the individual mandate is unconstitutional in any way. As many times as I have read the Constitution, I didn't see anything in there that it would fit into. It might fit into the "right to privacy" that is implied with the 4th Amendment. But, if you're going to go that rout, then banning gay marriage, drugs, and abortion are unconstitutional. Likewise, the transvaginal ultrasounds are too.
Which is why I believe all of that is unconstitutional... I don't believe that people should forced to buy or live or do or don't do things (within reason as we don't want complete anarchy) that they don't want to....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.
No they aren't going to change overnight. This bill is an attempt to bush a giant system in a better direction. It's large and complicated because the system is large and complicated and because the major players have the $$ to buy enough congressmen to keep us from making more substantive changes.
I know you don't think so, but you are actually making a pretty persuasive argument for a single-payer, Medicare for all type of system.
And I don't know the exact cut off points, but there will be subsidies for some to help offset the cost of the premiums.0 -
Really, I don't believe that the individual mandate is unconstitutional in any way. As many times as I have read the Constitution, I didn't see anything in there that it would fit into. It might fit into the "right to privacy" that is implied with the 4th Amendment. But, if you're going to go that rout, then banning gay marriage, drugs, and abortion are unconstitutional. Likewise, the transvaginal ultrasounds are too.
Which is why I believe all of that is unconstitutional... I don't believe that people should forced to buy or live or do or don't do things (within reason as we don't want complete anarchy) that they don't want to....
"within reason".
Such a delightful term.
Whose "reason"? Yours? Mine?
The challenge of sharing space with 310 million other people.0 -
Really, I don't believe that the individual mandate is unconstitutional in any way. As many times as I have read the Constitution, I didn't see anything in there that it would fit into. It might fit into the "right to privacy" that is implied with the 4th Amendment. But, if you're going to go that rout, then banning gay marriage, drugs, and abortion are unconstitutional. Likewise, the transvaginal ultrasounds are too.
Which is why I believe all of that is unconstitutional... I don't believe that people should forced to buy or live or do or don't do things (within reason as we don't want complete anarchy) that they don't want to....
"within reason".
Such a delightful term.
Whose "reason"? Yours? Mine?
The challenge of sharing space with 310 million other people.
I think a womans personality is far more important than her looks.....within reason.0 -
[/quote]
QUOTE: Which is why I believe all of that is unconstitutional... I don't believe that people should forced to buy or live or do or don't do things (within reason as we don't want complete anarchy) that they don't want to....
[/quote] END QUOTE
You obey the traffic laws or you get fined. Those laws apply to anyone on the road, across the board. I'm sure you'd rather speed or not stop at every stop sign but you obey because it is the law and serves the greater society. You inherited this culture of law, which is basically a philosophy of communal living in greater peace and safety. The health market needs to be brought into this same philosophical paradigm. It has been living the high life and has become deeply flawed, if not down-right decadent.
Part of the high cost of healthcare today is paying for all of the people who don’t pay anything for their health care. Now Congress, under its power to lay and collect taxes created a reasonable tax for health care, same as local governments create reasonable taxes for public safety and trash removal, just to name a few and for which I'm very thankful for. With the burden of health user slackers gone - thank you Justice Roberts - the cost of care will go down. Maybe? That's the plan, although greedy insurance companies are going to try and make even more money off of this, just watch.
Modern/global problems require modern/global solutions. The health market we currently have is unfair (preexisting conditions anyone?) and completely unsustainable. Government needs to step in and regulate it - government in this case is not overreaching but protecting us. Ultimately, I would rather see a single institution with the capability of encompassing the entire population and power to attack such a problem do so rather than sit on their collective specially insured *sses, er hands, but at least a small step in the right direction was made.
-Debra0 -
Really, I don't believe that the individual mandate is unconstitutional in any way. As many times as I have read the Constitution, I didn't see anything in there that it would fit into. It might fit into the "right to privacy" that is implied with the 4th Amendment. But, if you're going to go that rout, then banning gay marriage, drugs, and abortion are unconstitutional. Likewise, the transvaginal ultrasounds are too.
Which is why I believe all of that is unconstitutional... I don't believe that people should forced to buy or live or do or don't do things (within reason as we don't want complete anarchy) that they don't want to....
"within reason".
Such a delightful term.
Whose "reason"? Yours? Mine?
The challenge of sharing space with 310 million other people.
Gotta love the snark. By "within reason" I mean people shouldn't be allowed to consider things like murdering and/or stealing as an acceptable way of life... However, if your rights don't infringe on another's then by all means have at it.0 -
Uhh..Scalia, really? The government forcing us to buy broccoli?
Ok, here's why I think you're a moron--person opinion, but you're a Supreme Court Justice and I'm not, so you probably don't care what I think.
Your analogy is messed up. It would be more accurate to say that the government would be forcing us to buy food, not specifically broccoli. Why? Because the government isn't forcing us to buy specific plans, just insurance in general. The market still exists. Not only that but it seems kind of ridiculous to say that the government would force us to buy food, doesn't it? You know why? Because we need food. We're going to buy it anyway--let's face it most of us don't live on a commune and grow all our own food. Even farmers buy products from other farmers. You know what else we need? Healthcare. Each one of us will, at some point in our lives, need healthcare, much like food. The fact that forcing people to buy food seems ridiculous to us is really just an indicator that the concept of health insurance (at all) is messed up. That's the takeaway.
Oh, and the government does implicitly force us (most of us) to buy certain foods anyway (through the market). Hi subsidies, how are you today? It's not like it's a foreign concept.0 -
There are a lot of good things in this law. How pre-existing conditions are dealt with and that you cannot be dropped if you get sick are a couple of items that make sense. I just don't like that they bundled it all up into a package and shoved it down our throats. The federal government will now force people to buy health insurance and tax them if they do not. What's next? Most adults need transportation. Maybe the federal government will mandate that everyone when buying a car must buy a new car made in the U.S. to prop up the US auto industry? If you don't buy a US made car you get taxed.
In the end, it has almost no effect on me. I have health insurance today and I will still have health insurance tomorrow. My rate will probably go up a bit but I can handle it. In addition, I am happy I can shelter my children until they are 26.
I don't think the supporters of this law realize that they still have to BUY health insurance. I really think they think they are getting something for free. I am going to have a good laugh when those that can't afford insurance today STILL can't afford insurance tomorrow and start b1tching because they have to pay the penalty tax which is still cheaper then the insurance policy. In fact, I am willing to bet most of the penalty money will have to be paid by people making less then 50k per year.0 -
Really, I don't believe that the individual mandate is unconstitutional in any way. As many times as I have read the Constitution, I didn't see anything in there that it would fit into. It might fit into the "right to privacy" that is implied with the 4th Amendment. But, if you're going to go that rout, then banning gay marriage, drugs, and abortion are unconstitutional. Likewise, the transvaginal ultrasounds are too.
Which is why I believe all of that is unconstitutional... I don't believe that people should forced to buy or live or do or don't do things (within reason as we don't want complete anarchy) that they don't want to....
"within reason".
Such a delightful term.
Whose "reason"? Yours? Mine?
The challenge of sharing space with 310 million other people.
Gotta love the snark. By "within reason" I mean people shouldn't be allowed to consider things like murdering and/or stealing as an acceptable way of life... However, if your rights don't infringe on another's then by all means have at it.
While I am certainly not above snark, I wasn't really trying to be sarcastic. Just pointing out that "within reason" encompasses a wide range of possible outcomes, behaviors, etc. You could go up to 100 people and probably get 70 different answers about what is considered "within reason" and what needs to be regulated.
And if you went to each of those 100 people, each and every one of them would sincerely believe that their views represented the epitome of freedom, liberty, and constitutionality.0 -
Uhh..Scalia, really? The government forcing us to buy broccoli?
Ok, here's why I think you're a moron--person opinion, but you're a Supreme Court Justice and I'm not, so you probably don't care what I think.
Your analogy is messed up. It would be more accurate to say that the government would be forcing us to buy food, not specifically broccoli. Why? Because the government isn't forcing us to buy specific plans, just insurance in general. The market still exists. Not only that but it seems kind of ridiculous to say that the government would force us to buy food, doesn't it? You know why? Because we need food. We're going to buy it anyway--let's face it most of us don't live on a commune and grow all our own food. Even farmers buy products from other farmers. You know what else we need? Healthcare. Each one of us will, at some point in our lives, need healthcare, much like food. The fact that forcing people to buy food seems ridiculous to us is really just an indicator that the concept of health insurance (at all) is messed up. That's the takeaway.
Oh, and the government does implicitly force us (most of us) to buy certain foods anyway (through the market). Hi subsidies, how are you today? It's not like it's a foreign concept.
Although I agree with you that everyone at some point will need healthcare... everyone does not need health insurance. This law forces people to buy health insurance. It does not force people to buy healthcare. There is a difference. I have paid for healthcare in the past without having health insurance.0 -
Uhh..Scalia, really? The government forcing us to buy broccoli?
Ok, here's why I think you're a moron--person opinion, but you're a Supreme Court Justice and I'm not, so you probably don't care what I think.
Your analogy is messed up. It would be more accurate to say that the government would be forcing us to buy food, not specifically broccoli. Why? Because the government isn't forcing us to buy specific plans, just insurance in general. The market still exists. Not only that but it seems kind of ridiculous to say that the government would force us to buy food, doesn't it? You know why? Because we need food. We're going to buy it anyway--let's face it most of us don't live on a commune and grow all our own food. Even farmers buy products from other farmers. You know what else we need? Healthcare. Each one of us will, at some point in our lives, need healthcare, much like food. The fact that forcing people to buy food seems ridiculous to us is really just an indicator that the concept of health insurance (at all) is messed up. That's the takeaway.
Oh, and the government does implicitly force us (most of us) to buy certain foods anyway (through the market). Hi subsidies, how are you today? It's not like it's a foreign concept.
Although I agree with you that everyone at some point will need healthcare... everyone does not need health insurance. This law forces people to buy health insurance. It does not force people to buy healthcare. There is a difference. I have paid for healthcare in the past without having health insurance.
Did you skip over the part where I indicated that the answer appears to be to get rid of health insurance, but since that seemsto be unpopular....
As it happens, healthcare and insurance markets linked by necessity so long as insurance exists.0 -
There are a lot of good things in this law. How pre-existing conditions are dealt with and that you cannot be dropped if you get sick are a couple of items that make sense. I just don't like that they bundled it all up into a package and shoved it down our throats. The federal government will now force people to buy health insurance and tax them if they do not. What's next? Most adults need transportation. Maybe the federal government will mandate that everyone when buying a car must buy a new car made in the U.S. to prop up the US auto industry? If you don't buy a US made car you get taxed.
In the end, it has almost no effect on me. I have health insurance today and I will still have health insurance tomorrow. My rate will probably go up a bit but I can handle it. In addition, I am happy I can shelter my children until they are 26.
I don't think the supporters of this law realize that they still have to BUY health insurance. I really think they think they are getting something for free. I am going to have a good laugh when those that can't afford insurance today STILL can't afford insurance tomorrow and start *****ing because they have to pay the penalty tax which is still cheaper then the insurance policy. In fact, I am willing to bet most of the penalty money will have to be paid by people making less then 50k per year.
The estimates are that individuals who have to pay the "penalty" will only be about 1% of the population.
And the problem with some of your answer is the same challenge that has faced those trying to improve the health care system for decades. First of all, it's a complex system that employs hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people and generates huge profits. Even if Obama had the magic wand that most people think he possesses, he could not eliminate it overnight. (A point often lost on my liberal friends who want an instant single-payer system).
And the American system is built on the (increasingly mythical IMO) idea that we should all have "freedom of choice" of our health care providers. So any alterations to the system had to preserve the appearance of that tradition as well.
Lastly, everyone wants the goodies (no preexisting conditions, keep kids on the plan), but people seem to think those benefits are left by the health care fairy with no bill. The only way to pay for that is to enlarge the risk pool. Even republicans know this--they're just not allowed to say it aloud.
While certainly flawed, the ACA, like most of Obama's programs, represents an attempt to improve the lives of the vast majority of Americans who have found it more difficult to get by and enjoy a quality of life for the past 30 years. It is also an attempt to start to get health care costs under control--or to at least slow down the increase.
I don't have any problem with people who criticize the particulars of the bill itself--although I do require that they propose a viable alternative if they want me to take them seriously (or at least just honestly admit they don't give a crap about anyone but themselves). But a lot of the comments you read in various places from conservatives or others about "destroying America", blah, blah, blah, are just beyond ridiculous IMO, especially since conservatives have said pretty much the exact same thing about every social advance made during the past 100 years.0 -
Uhh..Scalia, really? The government forcing us to buy broccoli?
Ok, here's why I think you're a moron--person opinion, but you're a Supreme Court Justice and I'm not, so you probably don't care what I think.
Your analogy is messed up. It would be more accurate to say that the government would be forcing us to buy food, not specifically broccoli. Why? Because the government isn't forcing us to buy specific plans, just insurance in general. The market still exists. Not only that but it seems kind of ridiculous to say that the government would force us to buy food, doesn't it? You know why? Because we need food. We're going to buy it anyway--let's face it most of us don't live on a commune and grow all our own food. Even farmers buy products from other farmers. You know what else we need? Healthcare. Each one of us will, at some point in our lives, need healthcare, much like food. The fact that forcing people to buy food seems ridiculous to us is really just an indicator that the concept of health insurance (at all) is messed up. That's the takeaway.
Oh, and the government does implicitly force us (most of us) to buy certain foods anyway (through the market). Hi subsidies, how are you today? It's not like it's a foreign concept.
Although I agree with you that everyone at some point will need healthcare... everyone does not need health insurance. This law forces people to buy health insurance. It does not force people to buy healthcare. There is a difference. I have paid for healthcare in the past without having health insurance.
Did you skip over the part where I indicated that the answer appears to be to get rid of health insurance, but since that seemsto be unpopular....
As it happens, healthcare and insurance markets linked by necessity so long as insurance exists.
I second this opinion. Health insurance companies don't help anybody.0 -
Really, I don't believe that the individual mandate is unconstitutional in any way. As many times as I have read the Constitution, I didn't see anything in there that it would fit into. It might fit into the "right to privacy" that is implied with the 4th Amendment. But, if you're going to go that rout, then banning gay marriage, drugs, and abortion are unconstitutional. Likewise, the transvaginal ultrasounds are too.
Which is why I believe all of that is unconstitutional... I don't believe that people should forced to buy or live or do or don't do things (within reason as we don't want complete anarchy) that they don't want to....
"within reason".
Such a delightful term.
Whose "reason"? Yours? Mine?
The challenge of sharing space with 310 million other people.
Gotta love the snark. By "within reason" I mean people shouldn't be allowed to consider things like murdering and/or stealing as an acceptable way of life... However, if your rights don't infringe on another's then by all means have at it.
While I am certainly not above snark, I wasn't really trying to be sarcastic. Just pointing out that "within reason" encompasses a wide range of possible outcomes, behaviors, etc. You could go up to 100 people and probably get 70 different answers about what is considered "within reason" and what needs to be regulated.
And if you went to each of those 100 people, each and every one of them would sincerely believe that their views represented the epitome of freedom, liberty, and constitutionality.
I get that. Really I do. That is why I used the clause of within reason because it is so fluid. But my point was I don't like the over regulating of people's behaviors. Yes (like a PP brought up) we have rules on the road to make people drive safer (hopefully) but in my opinion to not do so would cause people to infringe on other peoples right to drive safely and safely get to their destination. Or on the flipside perhaps if enough people had gotten hurt in the past, their would be an automatic safe driving culture (though I don't see that likely). And yes, while covering the uninsured ends up being the burden of the tax payer and premium holders, that is largely because the uninsured don't pay their bills (and I'm not just talking the high dollar bills either) and they generally aren't smart about where they should go.... Or perhaps they are since most people know that the ER cannot turn you away even if you can't pay, so they are thusly stealing from the hospital and those that pay their bills. When instead they could find a much cheaper clinic or even if they are fortunate a free clinic for their everyday illnesses and pay their bill. And no, it doesn't have to be all that expensive especially if they have different types of clinics. The clinics in places like Walmart or cvs are typically the cheapest. Less than $100 for almost everything. I would LOVE to see that type of program expanded across the states. Unfortunately, states don't like that.0
