PDA

View Full Version : I now support Obamacare



gunnut
13 Apr 15,, 21:17
Many employers have stopped offering company sponsored health insurance plans and giving the money directly to employees for them to shop for their own plan. This is how things should be. We buy what we think we need and shop around for the best service within our budget. NOT abuse the system because someone else is subsidizing our health care.

I can't believe it took Obamacare to turn this system around. I'm pretty sure it's an "unintended consequence" of this poorly written law. But hey, whatever it takes to get the American people to actually care about shopping for their doctors is a good thing.

Search for my post history. I've written years ago that the way to fix our health care system requires:

1. De-couple employment and health insurance
2. Allow insurance companies to do business across state borders
3. I forgot the 3rd point I wanted to make...:biggrin:

SteveDaPirate
13 Apr 15,, 22:20
Gunnut! I'm shocked! :eek:

I do agree with your first point in particular though. Having health insurance linked to your employer leads to all sorts of bizarre complications in the market.

I think everyone "should" have some level of health insurance, if only to avoid catastrophic financial risk. Having everyone insured would also help hospitals offer more rational pricing structures since they won't have to try to balance the free care they give to those without insurance or the ability to pay by charging outrageous amounts to the rest of us.

I actually like the idea of a federal healthcare insurance program that offers a few basic health insurance options while aiming to break even on the cost to support the bureaucracy. This will serve to prevent huge swings in the market, while private companies are free to compete by being more efficient (shouldn't be too hard) or offering more niche options.

Blademaster
14 Apr 15,, 00:48
Oh my god!!!! Hell has frozen over!!!! The world is coming to an end!!!! Rapture has come!!!! Climate change is actually real now!!!!!

Andrey Egorov
14 Apr 15,, 00:55
Look where living in California got you...

Red Team
14 Apr 15,, 01:44
Alright guys no need to be alarmed, Hell is only going through a mild cooling period. Just as long as we don't see gunnut endorsing Hillary Clinton for president or calling for a new UN world order under the rule of Secretary-Emperor Ban-Ki-Moon we should start seeing the place turn back into its good ol' naturally inhospitable self.

39606


...huh, who knew Hell was in Michigan?

gunnut
14 Apr 15,, 02:16
Hey, I support homosexual marriage, Planned Parenthood, Affirmative Action, and I am against the religious freedom act in Indiana. Not for the reasons you might expect.

I support Obamacare not for the reason why most people support Obamacare.

gunnut
14 Apr 15,, 02:16
Alright guys no need to be alarmed, Hell is only going through a mild cooling period. Just as long as we don't see gunnut endorsing Hillary Clinton for president or calling for a new UN world order under the rule of Secretary-Emperor Ban-Ki-Moon we should start seeing the place turn back into its good ol' naturally inhospitable self.

39606


...huh, who knew Hell was in Michigan?

If Hell is in Michigan, then why is the kitchen so far away?

gunnut
14 Apr 15,, 02:17
Oh my god!!!! Hell has frozen over!!!! The world is coming to an end!!!! Rapture has come!!!! Climate change is actually real now!!!!!

I never said climate change is not real. :)

gunnut
14 Apr 15,, 02:19
Gunnut! I'm shocked! :eek:

I do agree with your first point in particular though. Having health insurance linked to your employer leads to all sorts of bizarre complications in the market.

I think everyone "should" have some level of health insurance, if only to avoid catastrophic financial risk. Having everyone insured would also help hospitals offer more rational pricing structures since they won't have to try to balance the free care they give to those without insurance or the ability to pay by charging outrageous amounts to the rest of us.

I actually like the idea of a federal healthcare insurance program that offers a few basic health insurance options while aiming to break even on the cost to support the bureaucracy. This will serve to prevent huge swings in the market, while private companies are free to compete by being more efficient (shouldn't be too hard) or offering more niche options.

Yes, everyone is in favor of a program that offers some "basic" health services.

We just cannot agree what the word "basic" means.

cataphract
14 Apr 15,, 02:53
...huh, who knew Hell was in Michigan?

What else could possibly spawn Michael Moore?

tuna
14 Apr 15,, 16:50
I'm still against it - if only because I HATE people telling me what to do (which is why I've spent my adult life in the military). I'm against seat belt laws - yet, I've walked (or run) away from enough car crashes to always wear mine.

What gets me the most is that "health insurance" is a complete misnomer. To me, insurance is something you should have but you NEVER want to use. I don't want to use my auto insurance, because that means that my car is destroyed (again), same with house insurance. Yet with "health insurance" things that should be planned for and budgeted are taken care of and since it is a $5 - $25 copay, who cares what the "charge" is?
You have a small child? Guess what, you'll have to deal with an ear infection. It should be a simple doctor visit and minimal (yet realistic) charge for the amoxicillian and be done with it. It shouldn't require insurance! The insurance should be for when the kid falls out of a tree and lands wrong.

Just my opinion.

Albany Rifles
14 Apr 15,, 19:25
1. Gunnut, give me a way to regulate insurance across state lines and I am with you. Insurance companies time and again prove that regulation isneeded. But you will run up against the state' rights issue.

2. Tuna, health insurance is not just a luxury. It is often the safety net for a LOT of people who do work but do not make enough to save for the catostraphic events that occur. 3 years after I got out of the Army (not a retiree) my son, age 2, required open heart surgery. The insurance company negotiated a direct payment to the surgeon of $57,000. The hospital bill was another $40,000 +.

We ended up paying $ 17k out of pocket. It cleaned out our 401ks and all our savings. If the insurance company had not paid the larger amount we would have been bankrupt.

As it is insurance kept our heads above water.

You cannot save for everything.

gunnut
14 Apr 15,, 19:34
I'm still against it - if only because I HATE people telling me what to do (which is why I've spent my adult life in the military). I'm against seat belt laws - yet, I've walked (or run) away from enough car crashes to always wear mine.

What gets me the most is that "health insurance" is a complete misnomer. To me, insurance is something you should have but you NEVER want to use. I don't want to use my auto insurance, because that means that my car is destroyed (again), same with house insurance. Yet with "health insurance" things that should be planned for and budgeted are taken care of and since it is a $5 - $25 copay, who cares what the "charge" is?
You have a small child? Guess what, you'll have to deal with an ear infection. It should be a simple doctor visit and minimal (yet realistic) charge for the amoxicillian and be done with it. It shouldn't require insurance! The insurance should be for when the kid falls out of a tree and lands wrong.

Just my opinion.

I completely agree with you.

What we have over the last half century, probably closer to 70 years, is a subsidized maintenance program rather than insurance. We use it for every single little thing from a cough to upset stomach to tooth ache. True insurance is for use in a catastrophic accident. We don't go to Geico or AAA for an oil change, or even to replace a fan belt. Why should we have the insurance company (the public) pay for our choice of eating tons of candy or drinking gallons of soda? Other people subsidizing our bad habits is the major reason why we have such poor health and high medical cost.

Obamacare did something unexpected. It forced employers to payout the subsidies to the employees and set them free to buy their own health insurance. Now people will see how much money is actually spent on their crappy life style choices. Maybe, just maybe, people will start to pay attention to their own health, shop around for the best bargain in medical procedures, and in a few decades, drive down health care cost.

Did Obamacare provide health care for the "millions of Americans without insurance?" I don't care.

Can that good for nothing artist now concentrate on his "art" without worrying about his dental bill? I don't care.

tuna
14 Apr 15,, 19:35
AR, I think you misunderstood. Insurance is not a luxury, it is a hedge against catastrophe.

Your son's case would be a great reason for use of insurance. But like I said, your son probably got an ear infection between 2 and 5 (just guessing based on my own kids). THAT is not a case for insurance, as it should be no more than $100 (doctor's time and maybe $25 for the moxy? Realistic numbers, not what insurance companies pay). Of course, since everyone just pays a co-pay who knows what is really charged in order to pay all the bureaucrats who are now in the loop.

My point is that insurance is something you should have, but pray that you never need (Auto, homeowners, renters, etc). Health insurance is a complete misuse of the term - a health savings account would be a better term.

Stitch
14 Apr 15,, 22:19
Just as long as we don't see gunnut endorsing Hillary Clinton for president . . .

If that were to happen, I would truly believe that the End Times are upon is!

gunnut
14 Apr 15,, 23:49
If that were to happen, I would truly believe that the End Times are upon is!

I did vote for Hilary in the 2008 primary...:biggrin:

Monash
15 Apr 15,, 10:00
Some food for thought from Forbes Magazine - which lets face it doesn't exactly have a 'left wing' reputation. Its about a year old but still interesting. the Link didn't want to work so I had to copy the article. It's by Dan Munro.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________________________________


Earlier this year, Cadillac ran a controversial TV ad that first aired during the opening ceremonies of the 2014 Winter Olympics. It was called “Poolside” and featured actor Neal McDonough extolling America’s work ethic over other countries — specifically France.

Turns out that many of those “other countries” (including France) score better than the U.S. in one key metric not included in Cadillac’s TV spot — healthcare. At least that’s according to The Commonwealth Fund in their latest report “Mirror, Mirror On The Wall — 2014 Update” (pdf here).

For this year’s survey on overall health care, The Commonwealth Fund ranked the U.S. dead last .

1. United Kingdom
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. Australia
5. Germany & Netherlands (tied)
7. New Zealand & Norway (tied)
9. France
10. Canada
11. United States

It’s fairly well accepted that the U.S. is the most expensive healthcare system in the world, but many continue to falsely assume that we pay more for healthcare because we get better health (or better health outcomes). The evidence, however, clearly doesn’t support that view.


39629


The report itself is fairly short (32 pages), but included prior surveys and national health system scorecards as well as data from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The report also included a list of major findings — including these:

Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care.

Access: Not surprisingly — given the absence of universal coverage — people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries.

Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing.

Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.

Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives — mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.

Perhaps the biggest single takeaway was this one:

The most notable way the U.S. differs from other industrialized countries is the absence of universal health insurance coverage. Other nations ensure the accessibility of care through universal health systems and through better ties between patients and the physician practices that serve as their medical homes. The Commonwealth Fund “Mirror, Mirror On The Wall — 2014 Update”

Unfortunately, many still equate “universal healthcare” with “Government run” or “single payer” healthcare. It isn’t (Universal Coverage Is Not “Single Payer” Healthcare — here).

All of which makes Cadillac’s advertising chutzpah even more brazen. After all, it was just seven short months ago that the Government “bailout” of GM officially ended. One of the more commonly cited reasons for the dire financial predicament of the auto industry giant was always — yup — ballooning healthcare costs. Just as Starbucks SBUX -0.44% spends more on healthcare benefits than coffee beans — GM (at least in 2005) spent more on healthcare benefits than steel.

The U.S. excels in many areas, but clearly population health (and all its related components) isn’t one of them. N’est-ce pas?
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _____________________________________

Cheers

zraver
15 Apr 15,, 23:32
Obamacare- make people who had insurance pay more to the point they can't actually see a doctor without being financially ruined. used the increased costs to inflate medicaid so you can say people are insured, even though they can't find a doctor to see them.

Albany Rifles
16 Apr 15,, 03:34
AR, I think you misunderstood. Insurance is not a luxury, it is a hedge against catastrophe.

Your son's case would be a great reason for use of insurance. But like I said, your son probably got an ear infection between 2 and 5 (just guessing based on my own kids). THAT is not a case for insurance, as it should be no more than $100 (doctor's time and maybe $25 for the moxy? Realistic numbers, not what insurance companies pay). Of course, since everyone just pays a co-pay who knows what is really charged in order to pay all the bureaucrats who are now in the loop.

My point is that insurance is something you should have, but pray that you never need (Auto, homeowners, renters, etc). Health insurance is a complete misuse of the term - a health savings account would be a better term.

Yeah...if a doctor would only charge $75 for a visit plus prescriptions were all that cheap.

Tuna, I hear about this on a daily basis. My wife is an executive in a hospital. I hear about all of the costs daily.

The medical industry would prefer a single payer, national plan. They could predict costs better and streamline administration.

Also, as an active duty member, aren't your medical costs covered? So where is your dog in this hunt?

All that said, here is what I think would work best.

Everyone has a government provided health care coverage which deals with the basics....annual check ups, contraception coverage (and as for religious exemption, if you as an institution operate in the public sphere you live by public rules...period. Individuals can still follow their beliefs.), non-life threatening injuries and diseases.

Immunization is mandatory as a matter of public health (sorry Jenny McCarthy but your science sucks).

More advanced care is available on a prioritized basis. Its triage writ large.

As an individual you can buy additional insurance which will cover additional levels above that.

But it ain't happening because too many businesses would be disrupted.

And we know ALL business is good.

Monash
16 Apr 15,, 05:45
That's (broadly speaking) a description of the Australian system except that higher income families pay an additional levy to help cover the national scheme and are encouraged to take out supplementary cover for ancillaries like single rooms, physio and dentistry etc. All of which while no means perfect still manages to retain broad popular support
across all major voting blocks.

chakos
02 Sep 15,, 06:58
Yes, everyone is in favor of a program that offers some "basic" health services.

We just cannot agree what the word "basic" means.

Basic as in 'we won't let our citizens die or bankrupt them with the cost of keeping them alive'

You want a particular doctor? private hospital? elective surgery? etc then pay for it or find a private supplementary insurer.

Works here in Australia although our per capita GDP is a little higher than the US its not by much.

gunnut
03 Sep 15,, 00:26
Basic as in 'we won't let our citizens die or bankrupt them with the cost of keeping them alive'

So only life saving procedures should be free, everything else is a paid service? I can live with that.

When Medicare was first implemented in 1965, there was no such thing as a "hip replacement surgery." This procedure is now one of the most popular surgery covered under Medicare. It ain't cheap. It's not "life saving." People won't die from not receiving hip replacement surgery. They just won't live well. Their quality of life actually sucks. What say you?

How about that expensive AIDS cocktail that keeps people alive? That should be free?

Experimental neuro surgery?


You want a particular doctor? private hospital? elective surgery? etc then pay for it or find a private supplementary insurer.

I'm all for that. But people call me all sorts of names for suggesting this.


Works here in Australia although our per capita GDP is a little higher than the US its not by much.

Because you guys actually have some more common sense than us? If we can't get something free, then it's racism, or sexism, or ageism, or homophobic, or whatever kind of ism we can throw out until we get what we want.