Why is Obamacare Bad? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Why is Obamacare Bad?


Pages : [1] 2

DrMaxit
10-15-2012, 17:33
Just curious as to what you guys have thought. On paper it sounds pretty good, but I'm on the fence about it. s

kiole
10-15-2012, 17:36
Simply put because penalizing the population for deciding not to buy a product is unamerican.

It's basically a huge tax on the middle class.

canis latrans
10-15-2012, 17:37
besides the high taxes and the Death Panel, it's great!

superdoc
10-15-2012, 17:38
bigger (much) government good for ya?

TK-421
10-15-2012, 17:38
The majority of Obamacare isn't bad. The problem I have with it is that you're forcing people to spend money to buy insurance. Some people might not have the money, some people might not want it. And then they penalize you if you don't buy it. If they want it that bad, then make an amendment to the constitution allowing it, like they did with income tax. Otherwise, don't be unconstitutional and force us to do **** we don't want to do.

The part I like is that all kids are still on their parents insurance until they're 25. Since I'm 22, I don't have to pay for insurance. :supergrin:

soflasmg
10-15-2012, 17:38
Government does not have the means to pay for it.

You do. They take your money to pay for it.

That is called stealing and is wrong.

JerryVO
10-15-2012, 17:40
I will add that it is more unwanted government in my life where the free market if allowed could come up with a better solution . All they would need to do is allow private competition across state lines.

It is the ongoing battle of capitalism vs regulation

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2

Foxtrotx1
10-15-2012, 17:41
We need socialized health care. It's as simple as that.

Leave it to the states.

What we don't need is socialized healthcare as proposed by Obama and his earmark masterpiece.

kiole
10-15-2012, 17:41
It's an easy out anyway I'm claiming religious exemption

cgwahl
10-15-2012, 17:41
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdnY8r7_fLw

soflasmg
10-15-2012, 17:42
We need socialized health care. It's as simple as that.

Leave it to the states.

What we don't need is socialized healthcare as proposed by Obama and his earmark masterpiece.

Crazy talk is crazy.

When is it OK to take my property and give it to someone else without compensation or agreement?

camelotkid
10-15-2012, 17:43
well the way things work now is most people without insurance go to the ER for any and everything and then don't pay the bill, the cost is passed on to the people that do buy insurance. And the other bad side of how things work now is that if you don't have a job or your job does not provide insurance you have no viable option. No one is going to buy cobra at $800 per month. In those ways Obamacare will be better. It is not really the end of the world that so many around here claim it to be.

canis latrans
10-15-2012, 17:46
We need socialized health care. It's as simple as that.



WHO needs socialized health care? I don't.

Diesel McBadass
10-15-2012, 17:46
Obamacare re defines full time as 120 hours a month, avergae 30 a week. Right now full time is 40. So, now a company will cap you below 40 hours, usually 36-38, a week. Under obamacare, youd get 10 less hours a week from employers capping you and 40 less a month. That type of lost income makes it impossible for many people to make a living. My company will be capping new employees if it goes through, so will grocery stores, wal marts, etc. Students, people who can only find part time work, etc, will need to work 2 jobs to make a living in most cases, good luck finding those in an obama economy.

el_jewapo
10-15-2012, 17:47
If they want it that bad, then make an amendment to the constitution allowing it, like they did with income tax. Otherwise, don't be unconstitutional and force us to do **** we don't want to do.


Oh that makes wonderful sense. As long as those crooked snakes can unravel their coils and point the same direction long enough to add an amendment to the constitution, anything they do is A-OK?

kiole
10-15-2012, 17:47
well the way things work now is most people without insurance go to the ER for any and everything and then don't pay the bill, the cost is passed on to the people that do buy insurance. And the other bad side of how things work now is that if you don't have a job or your job does not provide insurance you have no viable option. No one is going to buy cobra at $800 per month. In those ways Obamacare will be better. It is not really the end of the world that so many around here claim it to be.

I don't have insurance when I go to the doctor I pay my bill and usually get a 30-50% cash at the completion of appointment discount. Why should I be taxed because some dead beat doesn't pay.

camelotkid
10-15-2012, 17:51
I don't have insurance when I go to the doctor I pay my bill and usually get a 30-50% cash at the completion of appointment discount. Why should I be taxed because some dead beat doesn't pay.
you are one of the few

ken grant
10-15-2012, 17:53
Government run Healthcare???????????

Someone please name a Government run Program that has been a success and did what it was intended to do and also done within budget.

Diesel McBadass
10-15-2012, 17:55
Anyone working part time jobs should automatically hate obamacare for the loss of income it would cause, while simultaneously raising taxes.

camelotkid
10-15-2012, 17:57
Government run Healthcare???????????

Someone please name a Government run Program that has been a success and did what it was intended to do and also done within budget.
yep government bad, anarchy good. We don't need roads, librarys, schools, parks, or any agency for that matter. The wild west was such a neat place. :whistling:

canis latrans
10-15-2012, 17:58
just what I wanted: health care service & competence ala the Dept. of Motor Vehicles and US Post Office

DrMaxit
10-15-2012, 18:02
Obamacare re defines full time as 120 hours a month, avergae 30 a week. Right now full time is 40. So, now a company will cap you below 40 hours, usually 36-38, a week. Under obamacare, youd get 10 less hours a week from employers capping you and 40 less a month. That type of lost income makes it impossible for many people to make a living. My company will be capping new employees if it goes through, so will grocery stores, wal marts, etc. Students, people who can only find part time work, etc, will need to work 2 jobs to make a living in most cases, good luck finding those in an obama economy.

That, I did not know. Holy crap.

How about how the doctors feel? Any doctors in here?

concretefuzzynuts
10-15-2012, 18:05
Government regulations choked down insurance companies, courts and doctors to the point that the government needed to step in and try to fix things with O-care. They are trying to fix a problem they started.

If the federal government would get out of the way and let the states and free market operate with some minimal federal regulations, the system would operate freely and fairly.

Trew2Life
10-15-2012, 18:06
It isn't perfect, but it isn't the dawn of the 1000 years of darkness that is foretold to be. Curently, there are over 30 nations that offer some form of universal healthcare to it's citizens. Norways' single payer system dates back to 1912 and they have an average life expectancy of 80.2 years (ranked 14th).

The U.S. life expectancy is 78.3 years (ranked 37th). Right behind Cuba at 78.3 years (and they have Universal Healthcare.)

Japan is ranked #1 in average life expectancy with 82.7 years and universal health care since 1938. Canada, U.K., both have higher life expectancies than the U.S. and both have universal healthcare.

I know of no modern U.S. citizen that isn't delivered into this nation without the aid of a health care professional. I know of no child who isn't offered vaccinations and immunization shots for school.

Todays children are afflicted with asthma and food allergies in record numbers. There are weekly food poisioning alerts/recalls. We live with SARS, West Nile, MSRA, anti-biotic resistant super bugs.

One of my co-workers sneezes and 4 others call out sick.

Healthcare is everyone's concern. My ability to pay should not determine my level of care.

We don't have the best system in place right now, but if our elected officials acted like grown-ups, we could.

Diesel McBadass
10-15-2012, 18:07
That, I did not know. Holy crap.

How about how the doctors feel? Any doctors in here?

i didnt know till my boss (an obama supporter) got it and he started doubting obama and hoping this fails. Im hoping to get a better job soon and be able to make a living doing something more rewarding but some people have no choice and have to work at a grocery store or such and cant afford to lose work like this

TK-421
10-15-2012, 18:11
Oh that makes wonderful sense. As long as those crooked snakes can unravel their coils and point the same direction long enough to add an amendment to the constitution, anything they do is A-OK?

If we're stupid enough to keep people in office who would dare pass an amendment stating that, then I believe we deserve to have it an as amendment. :rofl:

canis latrans
10-15-2012, 18:18
Curently, there are over 30 nations that offer some form of universal healthcare to it's citizens.

and when the chips are down (if they can afford to) they fly here to the best medical care in the world

Trew2Life
10-15-2012, 18:29
and when the chips are down (if they can afford to) they fly here to the best medical care in the world

Funny ... They took the young girl (Malala Yousufzai) shot by the Taliban to a facility in the U.K.

The U.S. certainly has talented doctors, but talent comes with a cost (as you pointed out). A sick persons ability to heal should not be related to his/her ability to pay.

sputnik767
10-15-2012, 18:29
Because as far as I know, it solves none of the current healthcare problems and doesn't address the current primary care physician shortage. Nor does it address compensation to drive physicians into the primary care field. But it does create a much larger pool of customers. This goes farther than the small government vs socialized medicine debates that we see on this forum. I am all for a plan that truly addresses the healthcare problems that this country is facing, but Obamacare is not it. If anything, it does more harm. But the government obviously should have a role to play in public health.

canis latrans
10-15-2012, 18:34
talent comes with a cost (as you pointed out). A sick persons ability to heal should not be related to his/her ability to pay.

and do you perform your performance behavioral analysis for those who can't pay?

should your kids pay a tax to enable those who can't afford your services to partake of them?

Flying-Dutchman
10-15-2012, 18:43
Obama Care is illegitimate. They used dead Ted Kennedy’s old vote instead of newly elected Scott Brown’s vote (who was voted in to stop Obama Care) and spliced it together in an illegal reconciliation. A majority of Americans did not want Obama Care and are happy with their insurance.

Taxes are going way up as someone has to pay for all of these uninsured people plus the Government bureaucrats and IRS agent enforcers.

You will be forced as a captive customer to buy insurance at a cost of $12,000 per year.

If you have good company provided health coverage it will be heavily taxed so your employer will drop it and force you into Obama Care.

Employers are announcing layoffs and hiring freezes due to Obama Care.

You cannot buy catastrophic low cost health insurance if you are healthy and take care of yourself.

Obama Care by design will eventually result in a Government take-over of the private medical industry. Say goodbye to innovation and new medical breakthroughs. Picture the USPS, IRS and DMV.

Economics 101; if it is free there will be a shortage so if you think hey I will sit back and not work and get free healthcare you will get rationed care and the death panel.

If others are paying for your medical treatment they will demand control of your behavior so you stay healthy. Say goodbye to anything fun but potentially dangerous.

RenegadeGlocker
10-15-2012, 18:46
Just curious as to what you guys have thought. On paper it sounds pretty good, but I'm on the fence about it. s

Raises Costs, when what really need is something that reduces cost.

The real problem though is it is not designed to help, but to crash the system so they can go to a complete govt run system.

hi-power man
10-15-2012, 18:47
"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money." – Margaret Thatcher

c6601a
10-15-2012, 18:50
Nor does it address compensation to drive physicians into the primary care field. But it does create a much larger pool of customers.Really? For you to believe that ObamaCare, Universal Heakthcare, Single Payer or any form of socialized medicine will create a larger pool of customers, you have to believe that those customers do not currently get healthcare. Do you really think that is the case? Do you really think that those who do not have insurance and do not have the means to pay pass on medical care and choose a premature death?

VT-Rider
10-15-2012, 18:51
:wow: President gets a private army. :shocked:

No one talks about Sect. 5210 on page 496 of H.R. 3590!:faint: Why not:dunno:???

canis latrans
10-15-2012, 18:53
we have to pass it to find out what's in it.

c6601a
10-15-2012, 18:56
Why should I be taxed because some dead beat doesn't pay.You are already paying for all the deadbeats. When they get care and skip out on the bill, who do you think pays for it? The hospital adds all their annual expenses and spreads it among all those that actually pay. That is how prices are set. In a hypothetical world where everyone (or their insurance) pays their bill 100% all bills will go down to between one third and a quarter of what they are today. Everything above that in your current bill is for you to pay for someone else.

Flying-Dutchman
10-15-2012, 18:59
we have to pass it to find out what's in it.
Those who passed it did not bother to read it because they exempted themselves from it.:upeyes:

concretefuzzynuts
10-15-2012, 19:01
:wow: President gets a private army. :shocked:

No one talks about Sect. 5210 on page 496 of H.R. 3590!:faint: Why not:dunno:???

That's because if you site it you are considered a "conspiracy nut" by people who don't read.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf

SEC. 5210. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS.
Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204) is amended to read as follows:
‘‘SEC. 203. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE CORPS.
‘‘(a) ESTABLISHMENT.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—There shall be in the Service a commis-
sioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency.
‘‘(2) REQUIREMENT.—All commissioned officers shall be citi- zens of the United States and shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act of 1923, as amended.
‘‘(3) APPOINTMENT.—Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and commis- sioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
‘‘(4) ACTIVE DUTY.—Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall at all times be subject to call to active duty by the Surgeon General, including active duty for the purpose of training.
‘‘(5) WARRANT OFFICERS.—Warrant officers may be appointed to the Service for the purpose of providing support to the health and delivery systems maintained by the Service and any warrant officer appointed to the Service shall be consid- ered for purposes of this Act and title 37, United States Code, to be a commissioned officer within the Commissioned Corps of the Service. ‘‘(b) ASSIMILATING RESERVE CORP OFFICERS INTO THE REGULAR
CORPS.—Effective on the date of enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, all individuals classified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this section (as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of such Act) and serving on active duty shall be deemed to be commissioned officers of the Regular Corps.
‘‘(c) PURPOSE AND USE OF READY RESEARCH.— ‘‘(1) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps
is to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed service’s reserve program) to assist regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emer- gency response missions.
‘‘(2) USES.—The Ready Reserve Corps shall— ‘‘(A) participate in routine training to meet the general
and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps; ‘‘(B) be available and ready for involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel; ‘‘(C) be available for backfilling critical positions left vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and domestic; and ‘‘(D) be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved communities (as defined in section 799B) to improve access to health serv-
ices.

canis latrans
10-15-2012, 19:01
Those who passed it did not bother to read it because they exempted themselves from it.:upeyes:

and THAT should tell you all you need to know about it

sputnik767
10-15-2012, 19:04
Really? For you to believe that ObamaCare, Universal Heakthcare, Single Payer or any form of socialized medicine will create a larger pool of customers, you have to believe that those customers do not currently get healthcare. Do you really think that is the case? Do you really think that those who do not have insurance and do not have the means to pay pass on medical care and choose a premature death?

Walking into an ER and leaving without paying does not apply to a private office. My post was addressing the latter. I was speaking about primary care.

ken grant
10-15-2012, 19:05
Government Run Program== RIPE FOR CORRUPTION

Flying-Dutchman
10-15-2012, 19:05
You are already paying for all the deadbeats. When they get care and skip out on the bill, who do you think pays for it? The hospital adds all their annual expenses and spreads it among all those that actually pay. That is how prices are set. In a hypothetical world where everyone (or their insurance) pays their bill 100% all bills will go down to between one third and a quarter of what they are today. Everything above that in your current bill is for you to pay for someone else.
That’s right. So how about we stop forcing medical providers to treat people. This compels people to buy insurance without Government coercion knowing they get treated only at the mercy of the provider.

Insurance and medical costs plummet; problem solved.

I know, this is cruel.

What is cruel is making the rest of us pay more in taxes. We are tapped out; compassion fatigue.

They have no idea of the current mood of the Country.

jp3975
10-15-2012, 19:10
It isn't perfect, but it isn't the dawn of the 1000 years of darkness that is foretold to be. Curently, there are over 30 nations that offer some form of universal healthcare to it's citizens. Norways' single payer system dates back to 1912 and they have an average life expectancy of 80.2 years (ranked 14th).

The U.S. life expectancy is 78.3 years (ranked 37th). Right behind Cuba at 78.3 years (and they have Universal Healthcare.)

Japan is ranked #1 in average life expectancy with 82.7 years and universal health care since 1938. Canada, U.K., both have higher life expectancies than the U.S. and both have universal healthcare.

I know of no modern U.S. citizen that isn't delivered into this nation without the aid of a health care professional. I know of no child who isn't offered vaccinations and immunization shots for school.

Todays children are afflicted with asthma and food allergies in record numbers. There are weekly food poisioning alerts/recalls. We live with SARS, West Nile, MSRA, anti-biotic resistant super bugs.

One of my co-workers sneezes and 4 others call out sick.

Healthcare is everyone's concern. My ability to pay should not determine my level of care.

We don't have the best system in place right now, but if our elected officials acted like grown-ups, we could.

Life expectancy here has nothing to do with medical care.

Americans are fatter than they've ever been and live unhealthy lifestyles compared to other people.

If you look at Canada, or England...where you may wait more than a month to get treatment for cancer, when you can get it here tomorrow...makes you appreciate our system a bit more.

glockdoc21
10-15-2012, 19:11
We could solve all of our healthcare woes right now if we said 1. no extraordinary means for people under 6 months of age or over 80 years of age 2. It will come down to this if we want to do this as a country. I AM NOT CONDONING THIS... only relaying a message. THIS is where we spend >80% of our healthcare dollars. If we said "We'll fund anything else, but if you want grandma saved, it's cash up front, " we'd come out ahead. End of life care is a money pit with little quality of life improvement. I sent 2 patients to the ICU today that are dead and don't know it yet...family wants everything done and they both have medicare.

RYT 2BER
10-15-2012, 19:12
Here is the REAL problem.

The good news is you can't be denied coverage for per existing health problems... So what do you do?? Well you carry NO insurance until you really need it, then you step right up and buy it..

The penalty for not owning from what I read is immaterial..

So only very sick people will carry it, and others will buy it ONLY when they're really sick..

Unfortunate but true.

c6601a
10-15-2012, 19:17
The thing that amazes me about the opposition to the individual mandate is that the same people who lament the lack of individual responsibility, who lambast the moocher class for being irresponsible, who fantasize of ways to force the freeloaders to take responsibility, are the same people who are up in arms when the government listens to them and does something to force the irresponsible citizens to take responsibility.

ObamaCare is basically RomneyCare which is basically DoleCare, which was the "responsible" alternative to HillaryCare. The greatest irony is that if Bush had proposed exactly the same plan as ObamaCare, not only would most on GT have supported it, but would have called anyone who opposed it a socialist for enabling the freeloader class that wants to get free healthcare without paying for it and sticking the bill to the responsible working folks.

The takeaway from ObamaCare is that the country has become so partisan that for a lot of individuals the sole determiner of right or wrong is which party proposed an idea. The saddest part is that these people are so brain dead that they do not see their own partisan ways and truly believe that they are acting out of some core beliefs and logic.

RenegadeGlocker
10-15-2012, 19:18
End of life care is a money pit with little quality of life improvement.

It is insane what we spend to keep a handful of people alive a few weeks longer. And to think how many to think how many people are lining up to profit from it.

concretefuzzynuts
10-15-2012, 19:19
:wow: President gets a private army. :shocked:

No one talks about Sect. 5210 on page 496 of H.R. 3590!:faint: Why not:dunno:???

I post it and still, no one talks about it.

soflasmg
10-15-2012, 19:23
My ability to pay should not determine my level of care.



By your words you are a communist.

canis latrans
10-15-2012, 19:23
We could solve all of our healthcare woes right now if we said 1. no extraordinary means for people under 6 months of age or over 80 years of age

sounds like Ezekial Emmanuel's "complete life" theory.

same as the Death Panel..."WE'RE paying for the care, WE'LL decide when to pull the plug"

RonS
10-15-2012, 19:24
What happens to insurance rates when you force insurance carriers to provide insurance to people they don't want to cover because (here's the hint; they are too expensive)?

What happens to insurance rates when people can not buy insurance until after they need it?

What happens to the cost of any commodity when the government gets involved in pricing? Here's another hint, what happens when regulations get so complex that it takes one grade school kid and three lawyers to run a lemonade stand?

Find where the constitution gives the federal government the authority to provide health care, or regulate education or give away free phones or half the other crap they insist on taking our money to pay for so they can buy votes with it. The tenth ammendment expressly forbids it.

Louisville Glocker
10-15-2012, 19:30
There are so many misconceptions out there, it is hard to know where to start.

I think it is bad because it doesn't go far enough and leaves the system in the hands of private insurance companies. They're not very efficient, and they spend a lot of money on marketing, commissions for agents, and - of course - profits. The money they spend on these components is money that you're paying as part of your monthly premiums.

Have you ever been to a big doctor's office and noticed that there are about as many people (or more) doing paperwork than helping patients? Why do we need layers of insurance and billing and paperpushers? It drives up costs.

Our health care system, as-is Pre Obamacare, costs almost double what the other industrialized nations are paying, yet our results are pretty bad. Depending on how you rate quality of heathcare, we're ranked pretty low. So we're paying almost double, get pretty mediocre results, and lots of people aren't even covered.

Plenty of thoughtful discussions out there, here are a couple: http://peterlbrandt.com/u-s-health-care-highest-in-the-world-in-cost-37th-in-performance-this-system-has-already-been-declared-guilty/

Costs

*The cost of the U.S. health care system is approximately $1.7 to $1.8 trillion per year, inclusive of all related costs, including litigation
*The U.S.spends approximately 18.2% of its GDP on health care related expenses
*The cost per capital in the U.S. for health care is approximately 40% to 50% higher than the next most expensive countries (Switzerland, France and Germany) and nearly double the average cost of 30 OECD health care systems
*Despite the present expensiveness of the U.S.system, nearly 50.7 million residents, or 16.7% of the population, are either uninsured or grossly under insured. By contrast, all residents of most other OECD countries are covered by health care insurance
*Medical debt contributed to 46.2% of all personal bankruptcies in the U.S.
Outcomes

*Despite being the most tested, most hospitalized and most over-pharmaceuticalized citizens in the world, the U.S. health care system produces nearly Third World outcomes by nearly every measure
*The comparisons below rank the U.S.to all other countries that maintain apples-to-apples statistical data sets
*The World Health Organization ranks the U.S. system as the highest in cost, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health among 191 member nations included in a study
*The Commonwealth Fund ranked the U.S. last in the quality of health care among similar developed countries"

Here's an article clip from before Obamacare: http://healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.aspx?docID=664391

"The authors found that in 2009, the United States ranked No. 1 (followed by the Netherlands) in the proportion of its gross domestic product devoted to health care: a full 17 percent. By comparison, the other countries in the report spent 12 percent or less, with Japan ranking as the lowest spender at about 9 percent.

Despite their country's spending, Americans can expect poorer access to physicians than people in other industrialized nations, with just 2.4 doctors for every 100,000 citizens. On that score, only Japan fared worse, according to the report.

Other troubling indicators included the fact that Americans also have the second-worst rate of physician consultations (behind Sweden), relatively few hospital beds, fairly short hospital stays in acute-care situations and a low rate of hospital discharges.

It wasn't all bad news, however. The United States is No. 1 in survival rates among breast cancer patients. It also shares the top spot (with Norway) for survival rates among colorectal cancer patients."

Some good things about Obamacare include no lifetime caps on coverage, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, young adults staying on parents' insurance longer, and many others.

Yes, you are forced to get insurance. People pretend they don't need it, then they show up at the ER and we all end up paying their bill. Those people without insurance are the real moochers. Preventative healthcare is much cheaper also.

I'll stop there....can of worms. We need single-payer like the rest of the world. It is more ethical and it is cheaper. It simply makes more sense.

RonS
10-15-2012, 19:34
We could solve all of our healthcare woes right now if we said 1. no extraordinary means for people under 6 months of age or over 80 years of age 2. It will come down to this if we want to do this as a country. I AM NOT CONDONING THIS... only relaying a message. THIS is where we spend >80% of our healthcare dollars. If we said "We'll fund anything else, but if you want grandma saved, it's cash up front, " we'd come out ahead. End of life care is a money pit with little quality of life improvement. I sent 2 patients to the ICU today that are dead and don't know it yet...family wants everything done and they both have medicare.

I have no problem with that. Except I want to decide how it is allocated. I pay taxes too and my mom is 82, sharp as a tack mentally and loved by a lot of people, so I want to cut you off to pay for her care. At least that is less arbitrary than your ageism. I know 30 year olds who are in worse shape than people 85 years old, more of a burden on society and who contribute less.

Or do you expect some panel of government experts to decide on a case by case basis, like they do SS disability or workers comp? That's a real joke.

You can't turn this over to the government, the people have no recourse against bureaucrats, the first thing they do is pass laws giving themselves immunity. At least if the government isn't directly involved in paying for or providing it you can hope for some help against private insurers and HC providers. Once you turn it over to big government they have total control and no checks or balances.

c6601a
10-15-2012, 19:34
So how about we stop forcing medical providers to treat people.Ever lived in a country that does that? Even been to a country that does that? Go and read up on Mother Teressa's charity in India. They run the streets and pick up the individuals that are dying in the streets and bring them to a place where they can have some peace and comfort in their last few days? Is that what you think USA should be like?

Do you know what it takes to tell someone "I can easily save you, but I am going to let you suffer and die" There are those that are quite capable of doing that. Do you really want one of them treating you?

Angry Fist
10-15-2012, 19:37
T'zagged.

Flying-Dutchman
10-15-2012, 19:44
The thing that amazes me about the opposition to the individual mandate is that the same people who lament the lack of individual responsibility, who lambast the moocher class for being irresponsible, who fantasize of ways to force the freeloaders to take responsibility, are the same people who are up in arms when the government listens to them and does something to force the irresponsible citizens to take responsibility.

ObamaCare is basically RomneyCare which is basically DoleCare, which was the "responsible" alternative to HillaryCare. The greatest irony is that if Bush had proposed exactly the same plan as ObamaCare, not only would most on GT have supported it, but would have called anyone who opposed it a socialist for enabling the freeloader class that wants to get free healthcare without paying for it and sticking the bill to the responsible working folks.

The takeaway from ObamaCare is that the country has become so partisan that for a lot of individuals the sole determiner of right or wrong is which party proposed an idea. The saddest part is that these people are so brain dead that they do not see their own partisan ways and truly believe that they are acting out of some core beliefs and logic.
Americans could accept Obama Care if it was passed legitimately with bipartisan support.

This is too intrusive, expensive and wide ranging a law to have been rammed through the way it was by Democrats only without a real majority.

The Tea Party was formed to repeal Obama Care. The American people are paying attention and want a legitimate Government. Do it right or do not do it at all.

You cannot make illegal legal with time. The negative ramifications of an illegitimate Government are far greater than even Obama Care.

All Democrats who voted for Obama Care must be voted out. We ejected a lot of them in 2010 and in three weeks we will eject some more.

canis latrans
10-15-2012, 19:49
Do you know what it takes to tell someone "I can easily save you, but I am going to let you suffer and die" There are those that are quite capable of doing that. Do you really want one of them treating you?

the ObamaCare Death Panels will do the same thing

Flying-Dutchman
10-15-2012, 19:56
Ever lived in a country that does that? Even been to a country that does that? Go and read up on Mother Teressa's charity in India. They run the streets and pick up the individuals that are dying in the streets and bring them to a place where they can have some peace and comfort in their last few days? Is that what you think USA should be like?

Do you know what it takes to tell someone "I can easily save you, but I am going to let you suffer and die" There are those that are quite capable of doing that. Do you really want one of them treating you?
In case you have not noticed we are doing our best to become a third world country; exporting good jobs while importing massive poverty.

You cannot have first world goodies in a third world country.

Increased productivity is the only way to prosperity; not taxing the haves. If that worked the USSR would have been the richest country in the world.

Private charity hospitals will take care of the poor. Good jobs with good health insurance like the old days are what we need.

The idea is to get people out of poverty; make poverty a temporary state with people entering and leaving the pool not as a permanent dependent class.

FFR Spyder GT
10-15-2012, 20:33
The thing that amazes me about the opposition to the individual mandate is that the same people who lament the lack of individual responsibility, who lambast the moocher class for being irresponsible, who fantasize of ways to force the freeloaders to take responsibility, are the same people who are up in arms when the government listens to them and does something to force the irresponsible citizens to take responsibility.

ObamaCare is basically RomneyCare which is basically DoleCare, which was the "responsible" alternative to HillaryCare. The greatest irony is that if Bush had proposed exactly the same plan as ObamaCare, not only would most on GT have supported it, but would have called anyone who opposed it a socialist for enabling the freeloader class that wants to get free healthcare without paying for it and sticking the bill to the responsible working folks.

The takeaway from ObamaCare is that the country has become so partisan that for a lot of individuals the sole determiner of right or wrong is which party proposed an idea. The saddest part is that these people are so brain dead that they do not see their own partisan ways and truly believe that they are acting out of some core beliefs and logic.

+1!

A woman I know uses my Dad's address for some unknown reason and a couple of months ago my Dad opened up all the medical bills that had came to his house that were addresses to "Beth". A two week cycle of bills totaled $375,000.00.

All were for drug related ER visits.

None of the ERs in Arkansas will treat her anymore unless she gets in an auto accident or something similar.

Guess who gets to pay for her ER visits?

Here's a hint........ It ain't "Beth".

blastfact
10-15-2012, 20:44
OP ,,, you have to ****ing ask?????

Say it's all freaking good. How do we pay for it????? How do we pay for it? We can't!!!!!!

jfost11
10-15-2012, 20:57
The U.S. life expectancy is 78.3 years (ranked 37th). Right behind Cuba at 78.3 years (and they have Universal Healthcare.)

Japan is ranked #1 in average life expectancy with 82.7 years and universal health care since 1938. Canada, U.K., both have higher life expectancies than the U.S. and both have universal healthcare.

Wow! Only a difference of less than 4 1/2 years between the "best" and us? The US is known as the most obese nation in the world. I'm no expert on the Japanese people but, I'm certain they eat much healthier and take better care of themselves than Americans do. I think the difference has more to do with that than a universal healthcare system.

My grandparents are in their 70's and haven't had health insurance for years. My grandmother was involved in an auto accident almost 20 years ago that seriously limited her physical activity level. 4 years ago, she had a triple bypass after a heart attack. The reason was stated as her cholesterol being uncontrolled for a long period of time. My grandmother had been put on cholesterol medication several times in her life and when the numbers were acceptable, the doctors took her off of it. Her current doctor said she should have stayed on it continuously given her diet and activity level. She is a southern woman and she cooks like one. Mayonnaise is how she makes her mashed potatoes creamy and she didn't know of any other kind besides regular Duke's. Light Duke's is worse than most regular mayos.

Yes, she is in her 70's and is in poor health yet she had a lifesaving surgery and is on medication that her life depends on with no health insurance at all. Now if her diet had been better and her exercise hadn't stopped, I'm sure she would be much closer to 82 before needing life sustaining measures and I don't see how universal healthcare has anything to do with that.

camelotkid
10-15-2012, 21:01
Wow! Only a difference of less than 4 1/2 years between the "best" and us? The US is known as the most obese nation in the world. I'm no expert on the Japanese people but, I'm certain they eat much healthier and take better care of themselves than Americans do. I think the difference has more to do with that than a universal healthcare system.


ORLY?
"Bagel Heads" Body Modification - YouTube

concretefuzzynuts
10-15-2012, 21:10
ORLY?
"Bagel Heads" Body Modification - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKvBYQeqmx8)

Their teeth are twins too.

Foxtrotx1
10-15-2012, 21:35
WHO needs socialized health care? I don't.

We are one of the few developed first world nations without it.

that's a sign.

wprebeck
10-15-2012, 22:03
We are one of the few developed first world nations without it.

that's a sign.

And?

We're one of the ONLY countries in the world with a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Many other nations look upon that as uncivilized. I'm not for caring about the opinions of other countries, to be honest.

.264 magnum
10-15-2012, 22:07
We could solve all of our healthcare woes right now if we said 1. no extraordinary means for people under 6 months of age or over 80 years of age 2. It will come down to this if we want to do this as a country. I AM NOT CONDONING THIS... only relaying a message. THIS is where we spend >80% of our healthcare dollars. If we said "We'll fund anything else, but if you want grandma saved, it's cash up front, " we'd come out ahead. End of life care is a money pit with little quality of life improvement. I sent 2 patients to the ICU today that are dead and don't know it yet...family wants everything done and they both have medicare.

I support, and have openly on this board for years, severely limiting spending for those who are very old or otherwise near death. I'd not support the same for the very young. The premature baby in the Level III Neonatal Intensive Care has a good shot at a lot of life.

In a way it's mass cowardice that we blow so much money on so many people who are near death and won't live long or well if they survive.

.264 magnum
10-15-2012, 22:14
The thing that amazes me about the opposition to the individual mandate is that the same people who lament the lack of individual responsibility, who lambast the moocher class for being irresponsible, who fantasize of ways to force the freeloaders to take responsibility, are the same people who are up in arms when the government listens to them and does something to force the irresponsible citizens to take responsibility.

ObamaCare is basically RomneyCare which is basically DoleCare, which was the "responsible" alternative to HillaryCare. The greatest irony is that if Bush had proposed exactly the same plan as ObamaCare, not only would most on GT have supported it, but would have called anyone who opposed it a socialist for enabling the freeloader class that wants to get free healthcare without paying for it and sticking the bill to the responsible working folks.

The takeaway from ObamaCare is that the country has become so partisan that for a lot of individuals the sole determiner of right or wrong is which party proposed an idea. The saddest part is that these people are so brain dead that they do not see their own partisan ways and truly believe that they are acting out of some core beliefs and logic.

That's a lot of nonsense.

1. Having freeloaders is better than having .gov force everyone to participate and forcing the net-contributors to pay for the less than net contributors, let's forget the legions of persons and companies evading Obamacare before it starts.

2. If Bush had proposed this he would have been excoriated by most everyone here on GT.

3. Don't even try to pretend that conservatives dislike Obamacare out of partisanship alone. It sucks on a visceral level. The first wave of massive Obamacare tax increases hit for real next year - you think many hate Obama now.

.264 magnum
10-15-2012, 22:24
There are so many misconceptions out there, it is hard to know where to start.

I think it is bad because it doesn't go far enough and leaves the system in the hands of private insurance companies. They're not very efficient, and they spend a lot of money on marketing, commissions for agents, and - of course - profits. The money they spend on these components is money that you're paying as part of your monthly premiums.

Have you ever been to a big doctor's office and noticed that there are about as many people (or more) doing paperwork than helping patients? Why do we need layers of insurance and billing and paperpushers? It drives up costs.

Our health care system, as-is Pre Obamacare, costs almost double what the other industrialized nations are paying, yet our results are pretty bad. Depending on how you rate quality of heathcare, we're ranked pretty low. So we're paying almost double, get pretty mediocre results, and lots of people aren't even covered.

Plenty of thoughtful discussions out there, here are a couple: http://peterlbrandt.com/u-s-health-care-highest-in-the-world-in-cost-37th-in-performance-this-system-has-already-been-declared-guilty/

Costs

*The cost of the U.S. health care system is approximately $1.7 to $1.8 trillion per year, inclusive of all related costs, including litigation
*The U.S.spends approximately 18.2% of its GDP on health care related expenses
*The cost per capital in the U.S. for health care is approximately 40% to 50% higher than the next most expensive countries (Switzerland, France and Germany) and nearly double the average cost of 30 OECD health care systems
*Despite the present expensiveness of the U.S.system, nearly 50.7 million residents, or 16.7% of the population, are either uninsured or grossly under insured. By contrast, all residents of most other OECD countries are covered by health care insurance
*Medical debt contributed to 46.2% of all personal bankruptcies in the U.S.
Outcomes

*Despite being the most tested, most hospitalized and most over-pharmaceuticalized citizens in the world, the U.S. health care system produces nearly Third World outcomes by nearly every measure
*The comparisons below rank the U.S.to all other countries that maintain apples-to-apples statistical data sets
*The World Health Organization ranks the U.S. system as the highest in cost, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health among 191 member nations included in a study
*The Commonwealth Fund ranked the U.S. last in the quality of health care among similar developed countries"

Here's an article clip from before Obamacare: http://healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.aspx?docID=664391

"The authors found that in 2009, the United States ranked No. 1 (followed by the Netherlands) in the proportion of its gross domestic product devoted to health care: a full 17 percent. By comparison, the other countries in the report spent 12 percent or less, with Japan ranking as the lowest spender at about 9 percent.

Despite their country's spending, Americans can expect poorer access to physicians than people in other industrialized nations, with just 2.4 doctors for every 100,000 citizens. On that score, only Japan fared worse, according to the report.

Other troubling indicators included the fact that Americans also have the second-worst rate of physician consultations (behind Sweden), relatively few hospital beds, fairly short hospital stays in acute-care situations and a low rate of hospital discharges.

It wasn't all bad news, however. The United States is No. 1 in survival rates among breast cancer patients. It also shares the top spot (with Norway) for survival rates among colorectal cancer patients."

Some good things about Obamacare include no lifetime caps on coverage, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, young adults staying on parents' insurance longer, and many others.

Yes, you are forced to get insurance. People pretend they don't need it, then they show up at the ER and we all end up paying their bill. Those people without insurance are the real moochers. Preventative healthcare is much cheaper also.

I'll stop there....can of worms. We need single-payer like the rest of the world. It is more ethical and it is cheaper. It simply makes more sense.


Wait a minute. You can't stand HOAs but you support nationalized healthcare? Really?

The medical stats stuff above is mostly rubbish and you know it or should. For but one item high level neonatal healthcare is so awesome in the US legions of kids who would have little chance elsewhere make it. Some of those kids die later hurting our stats.
Let's say you have a kiddo born months premature....would you prefer he be cared for at a Level III NICU here or whatever the Cuban equivalent is-?


Are you going to personally fire those sales people whose commissions will evaporate under your plan?

More later.

VA27
10-15-2012, 22:43
I post it and still, no one talks about it.

Ok, I will. It's an army, but not the kind he's thinking of. It's a draft. ALL healthcare workers will be drafted into the Public Health Service. With ranks and rates (you Navy guys know what I'm talking about) and probably equivalent pay to the corresponding military rank. The .gov WILL be the ONLY healthcare available. Sure the bill talks about 'emergency' and hope that you think about large natural disasters and/or terrorist attacks, but make no mistake, it's a complete takeover of healthcare in America.

Happy now?

Grabbrass
10-15-2012, 22:49
Obamacare re defines full time as 120 hours a month, avergae 30 a week. Right now full time is 40. So, now a company will cap you below 40 hours, usually 36-38, a week. Under obamacare, youd get 10 less hours a week from employers capping you and 40 less a month. That type of lost income makes it impossible for many people to make a living. My company will be capping new employees if it goes through, so will grocery stores, wal marts, etc. Students, people who can only find part time work, etc, will need to work 2 jobs to make a living in most cases, good luck finding those in an obama economy.

It'll be great for the unemployment numbers though, since everyone will have a (part-time) job!

As for the lost income across the board, that's where the next big piece of legislation comes in - Obamamore! "More" money in your pocket, courtesy of those who have "More." Just vote Obama.

El_Ron1
10-15-2012, 22:51
My ignore list is second to none! :number1:

NEOH212
10-15-2012, 23:22
Government does not have the means to pay for it.

You do. They take your money to pay for it.

That is called stealing and is wrong.

Bingo! (Amongst many other things too.)

:thumbsup:

NEOH212
10-15-2012, 23:23
We are one of the few developed first world nations without it.

that's a sign.

And one of the few left that isn't socialist.


.....Yet. :whistling:

plainsman
10-15-2012, 23:58
The premium must really be a lu lu, that they never talk about the price, not that it matters, because government can raise your rates through the roof, anytime they want, and when the hell else are you going to go, Cuba? How bad is it, that they have to force you to buy it, and forget about doctor privacy, your universal medical records will be shared with more people then you can count. They are planning on stealing billions from medicare beneficiaries to fund this, from a government who cant save a dollar on a asprin. Just trying to get a appointment will be a joke, along with sitting in a waiting room with a herd of lowlifes who will never pay a dime for anything. Once they ve destroyed the present health care system, you'll have no where else to go.

Instead, why not make everyone responsible for their own care, either cover yourself, or have money taken out of whatever government assistance you get.

faawrenchbndr
10-16-2012, 02:06
Just curious as to what you guys have thought. On paper it sounds pretty good, but I'm on the fence about it. s

Have ya read it? Do you know about the mandated computer
chip they want to place in everyone? :dunno:

DanaT
10-16-2012, 02:49
Obamacare re defines full time as 120 hours a month, avergae 30 a week. Right now full time is 40. So, now a company will cap you below 40 hours, usually 36-38, a week. Under obamacare, youd get 10 less hours a week from employers capping you and 40 less a month. That type of lost income makes it impossible for many people to make a living. My company will be capping new employees if it goes through, so will grocery stores, wal marts, etc. Students, people who can only find part time work, etc, will need to work 2 jobs to make a living in most cases, good luck finding those in an obama economy.

I have already decided that the non-professional level employees (the $13-25 hr employees) we are hiring in 2013 will have their hours capped at 25hrs. I would rather hire 2 part time employees than 1 full time so I dont have to deal with the Obama care stuff.

For professional level employees (the $70k+) their health care is already built into the pay packages. It much easier to justify paying $1200 -1500 a month as an employer to professional level employees that are difficult to find/replace than to semi-skilled employees that can be much more easily replaced.

Bravo middle class. Do you see that? You want a $25/hr job ($50k a year), I will only hire you part time. Hows all that hope and change working out for you? Wait. You got the CHANGE (half time work) and you even got the HOPE (you hope you can pay the bills working part time or you hope you can find another part time job).

What more could you want?

DanaT
10-16-2012, 02:50
Have ya read it? Do you know about the mandated computer
chip they want to place in everyone? :dunno:

Thats a good thing. I am bidding on the contract for it!

DanaT
10-16-2012, 02:56
My ability to pay should not determine my level of care.

My ability to pay shouldn't affect:
The car I drive
The house I live in
The type of jet I have
The type of food I eat
The restaurants I eat at
The clothes I wear


The list is very long of what my ability to pay should not determine.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

I am not really ABLE to do alot, but I NEED a lot of things. I am thinking right now I NEED a ferrari. When you ponying up some cash for my ferrari Trew??

TheJ
10-16-2012, 03:19
....A sick persons ability to heal should not be related to his/her ability to pay.

It certainly should unless you believe that everyone is born with an inalienable right to some portion of the life and labor of others.

I do not hold that view.

DanaT
10-16-2012, 03:23
It isn't perfect, but it isn't the dawn of the 1000 years of darkness that is foretold to be. Curently, there are over 30 nations that offer some form of universal healthcare to it's citizens. Norways' single payer system dates back to 1912 and they have an average life expectancy of 80.2 years (ranked 14th).

The U.S. life expectancy is 78.3 years (ranked 37th). Right behind Cuba at 78.3 years (and they have Universal Healthcare.)

Japan is ranked #1 in average life expectancy with 82.7 years and universal health care since 1938. Canada, U.K., both have higher life expectancies than the U.S. and both have universal healthcare..

This is where you are either: lying and know it, you are ignorant and dont it, or lack the ability to analyze any data.

As an example, Japan has a land area of 152,411 square miles. The USA has a land area of 2,959,064 square miles.

You say Japan has the longest life expectancy and USA is #37.

It is obvious that it is not health care, it is the land area that gives Japanese longer lives.

You see to have difficulty with observation and causation.

If you are NOT LYING show me a VALID STUDY that attributes life expectancy to how health insurance is allocated.

Most of the studies I have seen in the 1st world, attribute most life expectancy to cardiac disease yet none can establish actual causality, they only offer observations that may explain it. Most studies I have seen where cultures live long lives are attributed more to diet and lifestyle than the health insurance system.

It is much better to PREVENT a heart attack than to treat one.

But continue spreading your BS and maybe somewhere you will find a cheer squad that doesnt call you out on it.

hogfish
10-16-2012, 04:43
Ok, I will. It's an army, but not the kind he's thinking of. It's a draft. ALL healthcare workers will be drafted into the Public Health Service. With ranks and rates (you Navy guys know what I'm talking about) and probably equivalent pay to the corresponding military rank. The .gov WILL be the ONLY healthcare available. Sure the bill talks about 'emergency' and hope that you think about large natural disasters and/or terrorist attacks, but make no mistake, it's a complete takeover of healthcare in America.

Happy now?

The REALLY awful thing about it is that they will not be issued long guns, but M9s alone. I have to wonder if they'll be given body armour. :dunno:

:rofl:

DrMaxit
10-16-2012, 05:01
Have ya read it? Do you know about the mandated computer
chip they want to place in everyone? :dunno:

No I have not read the entire thing. That is one reason I made this thread. I wanted to hear some educated opinions for or against.

Tell me more about these chips? or a citation?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/microchip.asp

Psychman
10-16-2012, 05:03
Most large hospital systems are bracing for a 25percent drop in revenue starting in 2014. Hospitals will have to cut costs to remain profitible and this means cutting staff. Many smaller physician based practices will go out of business. Doctors may stop taking medicare patients. Fewer people will want to go into health care. Some people will bare the brunt of trying to pay for the extremely high costs of running the program. People with limited financial resources will be fined.

Want more reasons why it is bad?

DrMaxit
10-16-2012, 05:07
Most large hospital systems are bracing for a 25percent drop in revenue starting in 2014. Hospitals will have to cut costs to remain profitible and this means cutting staff. Many smaller physician based practices will go out of business. Doctors may stop taking medicare patients. Fewer people will want to go into health care. Some people will bare the brunt of trying to pay for the extremely high costs of running the program. People with limited financial resources will be fined.

Want more reasons why it is bad?

Show me how. "Prove it." I'm not saying I disagree, I just can't seem to find proof of this myself. I speculate this is what may happen as well, but I'm struggling citing anything.

Psychman
10-16-2012, 05:14
Show me how. "Prove it." I'm not saying I disagree, I just can't seem to find proof of this myself. I speculate this is what may happen as well, but I'm struggling citing anything.


I am affiliated with a very large hospital system here and we have had numerous meetings about the expected drop in revenue. Hospitals, to remain solvent will need to cut costs. It is a simple matter of mathematics. Obama's plan will not be cutting benefits to patients, so the cuts will be on the provider side. Many providers here already do not accept medicaid patients due to the poor reimbursement. If medicare reimbursement falls below a viable level then providers will simply opt out of the program. I can't provide you with links to read.

DanaT
10-16-2012, 05:24
I can tell you that the that the 2.3% excise tax on medical devices will cost you 10% more.

Why? I have already adjusted 2013 pricing to reflect this. Do you think I am going to pay that 2.3%? Now, the cleaver person would say "if it is 2.3% tax, why are you upping prices by 10% to cover it?". Well, I now have more burdens to comply with. I have money that is tied up (taxes must be paid, they dont care if your customer has actually paid you yet, you must pay the taxes). I figure (and I think it is a realistic estimate) that this tax will cost me 10% more and therefor YOU are paying it. I am not decreasing my margins to eat the cost of a tax.

You want it (need it), you will pay the taxes. Its quite simple.

DanaT
10-16-2012, 05:27
I am affiliated with a very large hospital system here and we have had numerous meetings about the expected drop in revenue. Hospitals, to remain solvent will need to cut costs. It is a simple matter of mathematics. Obama's plan will not be cutting benefits to patients, so the cuts will be on the provider side. Many providers here already do not accept medicaid patients due to the poor reimbursement. If medicare reimbursement falls below a viable level then providers will simply opt out of the program. I can't provide you with links to read.

And dont forget that a medical devices (a bandaid is considered a class 1 medical device, but I am not sure what class of devices Obamacare raises it on..if its class 1, you will even get hit with a price increase on bandaids in the grocery store) will see a 2.3% price increase. That ICD (implantable cardiac defibrillator) that the hospital buys, expect it to go up in price for the hospital. This makes budgets even tighter.

Flying-Dutchman
10-16-2012, 05:31
Show me how. "Prove it." I'm not saying I disagree, I just can't seem to find proof of this myself. I speculate this is what may happen as well, but I'm struggling citing anything.
Why don’t you ask doctors you know what they think of Obama Care?

Every doctor I know hates it and the hospitals hate it too.

It is no mystery why the Democrats were trounced historically in 2010.

The remaining Obama Care politicians need a big red O painted on their foreheads.

DanaT
10-16-2012, 05:51
Show me how. "Prove it."

I told you. I am raising prices 10% that YOU will pay (either directly or indirectly).

stevemc
10-16-2012, 06:15
Of course, all the ones who disagree with it and have children over 18 who are uninsured, without jobs and not in school will not use their insurance to cover their kids, because they disagree with it so much.

Flying-Dutchman
10-16-2012, 06:48
Of course, all the ones who disagree with it and have children over 18 who are uninsured, without jobs and not in school will not use their insurance to cover their kids, because they disagree with it so much.
And everyone’s rates go up to insure the unemployed 25 year old living in Mom’s basement.

This is a jobs problem. The 25 year old should get a job.

America is pretending it is rich by propping things up with food stamps, section 8 and now free healthcare.

The $16 Trillion debt is the result of this pretending. It will end one day.

Flying-Dutchman
10-16-2012, 06:59
We are one of the few developed first world nations without it.

that's a sign.
And how are those European countries doing these days? They are broke.

Economics 101; when you give it away for free you create a shortage with rationing and death panels.

Socialism fails every time it is tried.

coastal4974
10-16-2012, 07:01
Government run Healthcare???????????

Someone please name a Government run Program that has been a success and did what it was intended to do and also done within budget.


Cuba :whistling:

SC Tiger
10-16-2012, 07:03
My biggest problem was with how it was voted in. No one knew what was in it but they passed it anyway "to see what was in it."

I think our HC system is screwed up but I cannot believe the government can actually make something MORE efficient.

Besides, where is the money going to come from?

coastal4974
10-16-2012, 07:06
You must be an Obama supporter if you believe that the gubmint can “give” unlimited healthcare to an unlimited number of people.

Diesel McBadass
10-16-2012, 07:22
Higher taxes layoffs and under and unemployment and skyrocketing medical costs all come from this program. How can anyone support it, because there messiah did a mussolini pose and said change a lot?

Dragoon189
10-16-2012, 07:36
What happens to insurance rates when you force insurance carriers to provide insurance to people they don't want to cover because (here's the hint; they are too expensive)?

What happens to insurance rates when people can not buy insurance until after they need it?

What happens to the cost of any commodity when the government gets involved in pricing? Here's another hint, what happens when regulations get so complex that it takes one grade school kid and three lawyers to run a lemonade stand?



Those questions are easy, insurance premiums go up $3000 on average. Hope and Pocket Change is all you are left with :crying::tongueout:

Narkcop
10-16-2012, 08:47
Government does not have the means to pay for it.

You do. They take your money to pay for it.

That is called stealing and is wrong.

You hit the nail on the head. Best explanation I've heard.

.264 magnum
10-16-2012, 08:53
I can tell you that the that the 2.3% excise tax on medical devices will cost you 10% more.

Why? I have already adjusted 2013 pricing to reflect this. Do you think I am going to pay that 2.3%? Now, the cleaver person would say "if it is 2.3% tax, why are you upping prices by 10% to cover it?". Well, I now have more burdens to comply with. I have money that is tied up (taxes must be paid, they dont care if your customer has actually paid you yet, you must pay the taxes). I figure (and I think it is a realistic estimate) that this tax will cost me 10% more and therefor YOU are paying it. I am not decreasing my margins to eat the cost of a tax.

You want it (need it), you will pay the taxes. Its quite simple.

That's more or less how the entire industry will deal with this according to my wife, she's an insurance company CIO, 7-12% across the board price increases for all related devices is what she's been hearing.

GeorgiaGlocker
10-16-2012, 08:54
I've seen several times recently the tape of Obummer in 2009 promising that your health insurance premiums will not increase and that you can keep your doc under Obummercare. My premuims have almost always increased in the past 30 years. There have been a couple of years where there was no increase at all but those are rare.

For him to promise something like this is mind boggling. The sad thing about it is that many actually believe him.

DanaT
10-16-2012, 09:25
That's more or less how the entire industry will deal with this according to my wife, she's an insurance company CIO, 7-12% across the board price increases for all related devices is what she's been hearing.

They calculate how I do. A tax will cost me 3 to 5 times the amount to comply. I picked about 4X.

But some stupid people think that I will adsorb the cost.

That's not how it works. I pass cost plus onto the consumer.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

.264 magnum
10-16-2012, 09:31
They calculate how I do. A tax will cost me 3 to 5 times the amount to comply. I picked about 4X.

But some stupid people think that I will adsorb the cost.

That's not how it works. I pass cost plus onto the consumer.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

It's a huge misnomer, actually more like a Democratic Party lie, that businesses pay taxes. It can be argued that businesses sometimes - sometimes - cover the tab for tax increases in the very short run but never over the medium and long haul.

fwm
10-16-2012, 09:40
Just curious as to what you guys have thought. On paper it sounds pretty good, but I'm on the fence about it. s

Ok, here's the deal. O's 'health care' bill does not cover real health care.

It controls what the insurance companies have to provide, and worse, what they pay the hospitals for that care.

Increased payouts for more 'legislated' coverage means and increase in premium cost for everybody. The reduced hospital payouts allowed WILL reduce the amount of care you can get. (My family has been in health care for two generations. Doctors, nurses, technicians, and managers. My wife has been OR manager and director at three different hospitals.)
ALL of the hospitals my family works in are implementing cost reductions (read layoffs) in anticipation of the reduced revenue's starting next year. (Each of the hospitals are anticipating 10's to 100's of millions of dollars in lost revenue)

Next time you need emergency services at three in the morning (When did you expect to have that heart attack) just try to get the help you need with half the ER staff out looking for a new job somewhere else.

This bill was written by people that know nothing about health care, health care management, or just basic economics, and shoved down the legislatures throat. Does 'we've got to pass the bill before we can know what's in it' sound familiar.

As written, in my view as an MBA, this bill was written to fail. It appears to me to be a thinly veiled attempt to strangle the 'man in the middle' insurance companies until they fail, then they can 'correct' the bill and make the government the ONLY provider of health care. (Have you seen the provision making it illegal for you to see an independent doctor on your own dime for your own peace of mind? Doctors will not be allowed to treat patients 'outside' of this health care provision)

I could go on and on about this, but a line by line of debunking 2000 pages of garbage is beyond the time I have to spend.

ETA: BTW, our insurance coverage at work has had the insurance premiums go so high in the last two years that my boss has informed me that, after 47 years of working for them, they will have to 're-assess' my value to the company at next premium time. Management was told by the insurance companies the increased costs are directly related to the increased coverage implemented by ObamaCare(not). So not only might my wife lose her job over it, I might as well. And guess what happens then. We get 'TAXED' for not having insurance we can not afford to buy. This law has a positive value to only a very small segment of people.

fwm
10-16-2012, 10:08
Funny ... They took the young girl (Malala Yousufzai) shot by the Taliban to a facility in the U.K.

The U.S. certainly has talented doctors, but talent comes with a cost (as you pointed out). A sick persons ability to heal should not be related to his/her ability to pay.

Never has been. That is a fallacy that has been spread by people with a vested interest in the outcome of Obamacare. My son has needed surgery twice when he had no insurance. They took him straight in and fixed him. My sister-in-law had an aggressive form of cancer and needed some really expensive medication. Both her and my brother had both lost their jobs and insurance. The pharmaceutical company provided her the medications she needed, and she is doing well today. Nobody without insurance dies in this country unless they are just stupid.

The best heart surgeon in the world is in Cleveland Clinic. The whole 7th floor is dedicated to foreign patients. He doesn't select his patients by their ability to pay, but whether no other surgeon will touch the patients heart because of the surgical difficulty.

He did my wife this summer after the surgeons in the heart surgery department she managed did not want to do her because of the difficulty. Under the provision of Obamacare, next year she would have been forced to have her surgery in the department that was unsure of their ability to do it.

geofri
10-16-2012, 10:43
I can't do anything but laugh when people say that "it's a human right to have free healthcare"

It was all I could do to stifle a "#$%^&*()@#$ ... do you have any idea how conceited and entitled that sounds? " the other day in class, when the lib chick next to me said that.

People have been dying since the beginning of time unfairly. It just happens. Doesn't it? I don't think I'm cruel and heartless to accept that? :dunno:

Is the saying no-longer true, that "life isn't fair"?

Churches are supposed to care for the sick. Your family, friends.. neighborhood spaghetti dinner, pancake breakfast fund raisers.. there are ways to pay for serious medical issues.. but those require humility and personal contact.

jfost11
10-16-2012, 11:31
ORLY?
"Bagel Heads" Body Modification - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKvBYQeqmx8)

Are you sure that's not a Klingon from Star Trek?

Cubdriver
10-16-2012, 14:13
My ability to pay should not determine my level of care.

Why shouldn't it?

-Pat

Kevin108
10-16-2012, 16:18
We need socialized health care. It's as simple as that.

Like all the other failing countries around the world? No, we don't! We need personal responsibility. This has been greatly obscured by generations of having healthcare tied up as a work benefit.

How did that happen? The same federal government that's now trying to install Obamacare on all of us. During World War II, the government instituted wage controls so employers were unable to raise their employees' salaries. The loophole was that employer could offer benefits, such as medical insurance.

The solution is clear: limited government!

Armchair Commando
10-16-2012, 17:37
Funny ... They took the young girl (Malala Yousufzai) shot by the Taliban to a facility in the U.K.

The U.S. certainly has talented doctors, but talent comes with a cost (as you pointed .

Well gees captain obvious the U.K is a lot closer now isn't it?

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Averageman
10-16-2012, 18:35
To Pay For Obama Care Tri Care Prime HAs As Much As Quadrupled.
My personal payment doubled.
Gotta carry those other folks on the backs of the Middle Class.

vikingsoftpaw
10-16-2012, 18:49
Will you ever be in need of an Air Ambulance? Canada has socialized medicine. They put all of that extra money into the primary care system.

They have no air ambulances.

Single payer systems work well in other countries like Germany, Finland and Norway because they don't have a permanent 'slacker class' to soak up the benefits others work so hard producing.

Left-Right
10-16-2012, 19:04
Obamacare is an imperfect attempt to provide healthcare insurance to the millions of Americans who, by a willful decision not to buy it, don't have it, or because they have a pre-existing condition, in which case they can't get it at rates that are comparable to those through an employer.

For those who willfully choose not to obtain coverage, make no mistake about it, the vast majority will at some point access the system. And the bill for that care will be borne by those who do have insurance, through higher premiums. So much for personal accountability.

As it happens, most people are in favor of not excluding folks with pre-existing conditions. So in order to do that, a mandate that everyone participate is necessary so that the pool of insured is large enough to cover the costs of those with the pre-existing condition. Since there will be those who can't afford the insurance, there will need to be subsidies.

All of this runs through the current system of private providers and private payors, so it is in fact not a government takeover.

My takeaway is this: the system we have today is unsustainable. Healthcare costs have been rising faster than inflation for over two decades. The U.S. spends way more per capita on healthcare than any other industrialized country, yet doesn't show better outcomes. Part of the reason for that is that the 30 odd million who are uninsured don't get the preventive care they need and, as a result, develop more serious pathologies and are more costly to care for when they do present for treatment.

So something's got to change. Maybe it's Obamacare, maybe it's Romneycare (essentially the same thing). But this much I know: the days of easy choices are gone.

tbone1970
10-16-2012, 20:45
Just curious as to what you guys have thought. On paper it sounds pretty good, but I'm on the fence about it. s


the declaration of independence was one page. the constitution on only a few pages.

anything that takes 2,000 pages to describe can't be good for the people. how many congressmen truly read it and understood it before voting on it? very very few i think.

Taphius
10-17-2012, 00:00
Making insurance mandatory does nothing to lower actual health care costs. That is the second premise that is wrong with it. The first being the government coercing you into buying something.

domin8ss
10-17-2012, 00:10
Because 60% of the people in America didn't want it, thus violating the 10th Amendment.

PAGunner
10-17-2012, 06:57
Many reasons, worst of which it's mean't flout private insurance out of business eventually creating a de facto universal healthcare, thus giving the government more authority to limit your freedom in the name of controlling cost... Everything from steak to motorcycles and even many more seemingly benign things will be banned, one at a time so you don't notice your freedoms a being taken, welcome to 1984.

Clutch Cargo
10-17-2012, 07:44
I pay for my insurance and county hospital taxes for needy folks. Why should I pay for folks' insurance that are living in another state?

DanaT
10-17-2012, 08:36
I pay for my insurance and county hospital taxes for needy folks. Why should I pay for folks' insurance that are living in another state?

Because muscogees mother needed $1m medical care and she shouldnt have to pay for it.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

MacChiroCtr
10-17-2012, 08:57
That, I did not know. Holy crap.

How about how the doctors feel? Any doctors in here?

From Dr. Bellar, one of the most accomplished women this side of Condi Rice: a doctor, a lawyer, a US Army officer, and about a zillion other things -- Obamacare Summed Up in One Sentence - YouTube

DrMaxit
10-18-2012, 01:25
From Dr. Bellar, one of the most accomplished women this side of Condi Rice: a doctor, a lawyer, a US Army officer, and about a zillion other things -- Obamacare Summed Up in One Sentence - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdnY8r7_fLw)

That was a good watch. My friend is an Army Pediatrician. Smart bunch they are.

aspartz
10-18-2012, 09:45
ObamaCare is bad because it destroys the concept of insurance. Shared risk pools are intended for WILLING participants. Forcing groups to accept people with markedly higher risk at the same premium is a violation of freedom of association. This makes as much sense as the silly proposition all those years age that forced car insurance companies to charge the same regardless of location and the risk factors there (downtown LA).
The government has no business in decreeing what health insurance must cover. If I want to accept the risk of port wine stain I should be able to not carry insurance to cover that malady.

ARS

HerrGlock
10-18-2012, 15:27
All that is well and good but I've not seen the real gotcha listed yet:

If the gov't is paying for your healthcare, the government can dictate what you can and cannot do to mitigate the risk of payout for damage.

Notice all this "Guns are a healthcare menace" stuff? Gee, they cost too much in government health care so we have to tax them. You may still have them but you need to pay $300/year to subsidize the healthcare related to "gun violence"

You like having choices going out to eat? Well if the government is paying too much for fat related stuff then it's a federal law that restricts sodas to 16 Oz instead of a NYC law.

All kinds of things can then be severely restricted because it costs the government money in terms of healthcare.

Go ahead, laugh and make fun of this for being paranoid. Just remember it 10-20 years from now when you wake up and say WTF? about some new "can't drive in the rain" law because there are more accidents then.

Shinytop
10-18-2012, 16:19
You can't have a national medical system unless you fix what is wrong with what we have now. What you have is a "legacy" for Obama, not good law or good medicine.

Where is the protection for medical practitioners from frivolous lawsuits?

Where is the fix for medical payments for Medicaid, Medicare, and Tricare? Either the government is putting the screws to doctors for treating patients under these programs or medical care is so overpriced for everybody else that doctors don’t want to waste their time with these patients. Either way it has to be fixed for any system to succeed.

Where are the laws with meat to severely punish doctors who scam the system?

Where is the push for the feds and state governments to quit allowing insurance companies to disappear when they are facing actually honoring their policies?

Where are the reforms for the cost of prescription medicine?

Where is the specific program to provide medical care in a cheaper manner than sniffles and splinters in the emergency rooms?

We needed preexisting conditions covered. But how can you hope to make that affordable for the country unless everybody is paying for some coverage all along. The bogeyman of people getting insurance the day after they discover their expensive disease sounds pretty certain. So if we need a single payer, must have coverage system how did we arrive at a system that keeps so much the same?

Atlas
10-18-2012, 16:29
Because 60% of the people in America didn't want it, thus violating the 10th Amendment.

Exactly...
All else is commentary.

DrBob
10-18-2012, 18:56
Why are you asking people who have already made up their minds that ANYTHING Obama says or does is wrong?

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is our only hope for providing care for Americans that even begins to approximate the care provided by almost all other industrialized nations in the world. The US ranks 37th on the list behind Costa Rica.

As a physician working in an underserved area in Florida, I can tell you that it is the only hope for many of my patients. Ask your parents what they think of their Medicare coverage. Under Romney-Ryan, teotwawki for seniors health care.

Fallout
10-18-2012, 19:17
My employer pays my health insurance premium package as an incentive to retain employees. I am a salaried goverment employee. (my flame hat is already on) I am able live comfortably off my salary but i grew up poor and stretch my money and live well within my means.. It is relatively low compared to others in my profession and low considering the risks involved. The insurance helps offset the low pay. Obamacare is going to cost me 1700.00 a year in additional federal taxes. When my so called cadillac health plan starts getting taxed as income. Which is about a 20 percent increase on top of the federal taxes I already pay.

I already subsidise benefits for the 47 % why should I now have to pay for their private health insurance to.

I am friends with my primary care physician and while talking with him recently I learned what his biggest concern about obamcare was. Something that doesnt ever seem to be brought up is that when the Obamacare mandate is in full effect. Payments and coverage rates to physicians from insurance policies are going to be based off of their performance rates. While at face value this seems like an incentive for doctors to give the best level of service. But patients rarely follow their Dr.s advice. So if someone fails to heed the physicians directions and fails to get better at the expected rate the physician gets penalized. What happens to Dr's that specialise in terminal care or hard to treat/diagnose illnesses?

The unintended consequences of this mandate are more than most people realize.

Atlas
10-18-2012, 19:24
... when the Obamacare mandate is in full effect. Payments and coverage rates to physicians from insurance policies are going to be based off of their performance rates. ....

How on Earth would a physician be rated?
According to what metric?

Taphius
10-18-2012, 19:36
Why are you asking people who have already made up their minds that ANYTHING Obama says or does is wrong?

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is our only hope for providing care for Americans that even begins to approximate the care provided by almost all other industrialized nations in the world. The US ranks 37th on the list behind Costa Rica.

As a physician working in an underserved area in Florida, I can tell you that it is the only hope for many of my patients. Ask your parents what they think of their Medicare coverage. Under Romney-Ryan, teotwawki for seniors health care.

How is mandating insurance going to lower health care costs?

When did insurance dictate price of service in any market?

sputnik767
10-18-2012, 20:00
Why are you asking people who have already made up their minds that ANYTHING Obama says or does is wrong?

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is our only hope for providing care for Americans that even begins to approximate the care provided by almost all other industrialized nations in the world. The US ranks 37th on the list behind Costa Rica.

As a physician working in an underserved area in Florida, I can tell you that it is the only hope for many of my patients. Ask your parents what they think of their Medicare coverage. Under Romney-Ryan, teotwawki for seniors health care.

This is not the first time I've seen you post something like this, so I would like you to tell me more about it. I'm not interested in statistics like "we are 37th behind Costa Rica" or emotional pleas about elderly patients in underserved areas. I want to know exactly how this bill takes care of the current problems while allowing physicians to maintain their practices and provide a level of care that is at least as good as it is currently. And keeping in mind the looming severe primary care physician shortage, does this bill actually address that issue? Does it do anything to encourage new medical graduates to seek a primary care field? Does this bill actually enable students to enter a primary care field and pay off the mountains of debt that we amass as medical students over 4 years of med school and at least 3 years of residency (federal loans at 7-9% interest). Because I know at least 4 doctors who are in primary care, who tell me that Obamacare is a disaster and will spell the end of small private practices. Two of them have told me that they may have to shut down their practice, Some of them are expanding into different fields, like basic cosmetic dermatology. I am not trying to be antagonistic, I actually want to hear your thoughts on this matter. As of right now, very few of my classmates actually desire to enter a primary care field, and unless this problem is addressed, we are back to square one.

Kevin108
10-18-2012, 20:11
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is our only hope for providing care for Americans that even begins to approximate the care provided by almost all other industrialized nations in the world.

You say this with the indignation that would suggest that providing for the recipient class is what taxpayers are for. Most of us do not believe this to be so.

MtBaldy
10-18-2012, 20:29
As of right now, very few of my classmates actually desire to enter a primary care field, and unless this problem is addressed, we are back to square one.

I know at least one doctor who has said she will close her practice if Obamacare is fully implemented. I believe her. She's invested huge amounts of money in the last 5 years trying to insure she will be able to maintain her standard of living after she closes her practice.

sputnik767
10-18-2012, 20:58
I know at least one doctor who has said she will close her practice if Obamacare is fully implemented. I believe her. She's invested huge amounts of money in the last 5 years trying to insure she will be able to maintain her standard of living after she closes her practice.

Even if we ignore the issue of maintaining standard of living, this problem runs much deeper. It's one thing for a doctor who has been in practice for 20 years and has established hundreds of patients to speak about standard of living, but new grads who are just entering private practice have monthly loan payments totaling roughly double the cost of a decent mortgage. They have to establish themselves while supporting themselves, their families, and paying off their loans. So if you consider the fact that most primary care fields pay relatively little, especially before you are established, this raises a big problem. Currently, the trend I am seeing is that med students are not choosing primary care fields. Since I don't believe that this act addresses compensation for primary care specialists, their medicare reimbursements will end up getting cut. Congress can't postpone those cuts indefinitely. So, if this bill addresses only one side of the issue and not the other one, the current problems only get exacerbated. Now, if I am wrong on any of my points, I want somebody to correct me. I am not saying that I know all of the details, this is just what I've heard, learned, or inferred.

FAS1
10-18-2012, 21:11
This short clip sums it up in the simplest terms that I can even understand.

No ObamaCare - YouTube


Glenn
www.fas1safe.com

MtBaldy
10-18-2012, 21:19
This short clip sums it up in the simplest terms that I can even understand.

]

Or this one:

http://youtu.be/vdnY8r7_fLw

vikingsoftpaw
10-18-2012, 22:30
I know at least 4 doctors who are in primary care, who tell me that Obamacare is a disaster and will spell the end of small private practices. Two of them have told me that they may have to shut down their practice, Some of them are expanding into different fields, like basic cosmetic dermatology.one.

Healthcare administrators have already foreseen this. There are few General Practitioners anymore . The PCP function will be filled by Nurse Practitioners, Physician's Assistants or Osteopathic Docs...

It has already occurred in Great Britain.

DanaT
10-18-2012, 23:05
You people don't get it.

I will limit non professional employees to less than 29 hours. Period.

I this week was a final meeting to set prices of a device (let's put it this way, if you need it you won't argue with me over price. You have three choices, die, pay it, hope in the next 2 minutes you can find a cheaper alternative).

Since we don't know the full impact, prices to hospitals will increase over 50% next year.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

certifiedfunds
10-18-2012, 23:12
Why are you asking people who have already made up their minds that ANYTHING Obama says or does is wrong?

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is our only hope for providing care for Americans that even begins to approximate the care provided by almost all other industrialized nations in the world. The US ranks 37th on the list behind Costa Rica.

As a physician working in an underserved area in Florida, I can tell you that it is the only hope for many of my patients. Ask your parents what they think of their Medicare coverage. Under Romney-Ryan, teotwawki for seniors health care.

No, it isn't the only hope.

The solution to the problem is to address the CAUSE of the rampant inflation that has plagued healthcare since the creation of MEDICARE.

Other than that, if their only hope for healthcare means voting for politicians who will redistribute the healthcare I buy for myself, to them, let them do without.

certifiedfunds
10-18-2012, 23:14
Healthcare administrators have already foreseen this. There are few General Practitioners anymore . The PCP function will be filled by Nurse Practitioners, Physician's Assistants or Osteopathic Docs...

It has already occurred in Great Britain.

You really shouldn't lump Osteopaths in with NP's and PA's.

bumpercar
10-19-2012, 00:00
My Healthcare went down from $149 to $89 a month & meds went down to

domin8ss
10-19-2012, 01:22
That was a good watch. My friend is an Army Pediatrician. Smart bunch they are.

My wife is a Navy pediatrician. Had your wife achieved her CPN yet? If not, I recommend motivating her to do it. It'll make her a little more valuable due to specialization.

domin8ss
10-19-2012, 01:35
How on Earth would a physician be rated?
According to what metric?

Iirc, there it's some sort of time table where a patient returns to the hospital for the same problem. I.e. they have a heart attack and get released after being taken care of. If the patient returns within 30 days the hospital gets fined big time. Problem is, many of these fines are based on high risk, and very likely to happen, scenarios.

Additionally, Obama keeps talking about the Cleveland Clinic as an example to follow. Problem is, Cleveland Clinic is independently funded through charitable donations, just like St. Judes. Insurance money doesn't go to pay for things there.

domin8ss
10-19-2012, 01:39
Even if we ignore the issue of maintaining standard of living, this problem runs much deeper. It's one thing for a doctor who has been in practice for 20 years and has established hundreds of patients to speak about standard of living, but new grads who are just entering private practice have monthly loan payments totaling roughly double the cost of a decent mortgage. They have to establish themselves while supporting themselves, their families, and paying off their loans. So if you consider the fact that most primary care fields pay relatively little, especially before you are established, this raises a big problem. Currently, the trend I am seeing is that med students are not choosing primary care fields. Since I don't believe that this act addresses compensation for primary care specialists, their medicare reimbursements will end up getting cut. Congress can't postpone those cuts indefinitely. So, if this bill addresses only one side of the issue and not the other one, the current problems only get exacerbated. Now, if I am wrong on any of my points, I want somebody to correct me. I am not saying that I know all of the details, this is just what I've heard, learned, or inferred.

Um, many medical students gladly give the military 4 years so that the government will payoff the entire balance of their student loans. After those 4 years are up they usually go work elsewhere. In those 4 years they earned experience they can pad their resume with, including deployments.

AK_Stick
10-19-2012, 02:04
We need socialized health care. It's as simple as that.

Leave it to the states.

What we don't need is socialized healthcare as proposed by Obama and his earmark masterpiece.




Why do we need socialized health care?


If you want it, but can't or won't pay for it, why should it be paid for by others?



No, the entitlement group, wants welfare, we do not need it.

sputnik767
10-19-2012, 04:34
Um, many medical students gladly give the military 4 years so that the government will payoff the entire balance of their student loans. After those 4 years are up they usually go work elsewhere. In those 4 years they earned experience they can pad their resume with, including deployments.

I am fully aware of the military option, and it is one that I looked into extensively before deciding that it is not worth it for me. And I don't think it is ever truly 4 years, often closer to 6 or more.

sputnik767
10-19-2012, 04:40
Healthcare administrators have already foreseen this. There are few General Practitioners anymore . The PCP function will be filled by Nurse Practitioners, Physician's Assistants or Osteopathic Docs...

It has already occurred in Great Britain.

Osteopathic docs are fully licensed physicians who practice the same medicine and surgery, in the same fields as MDs. They are not the same as NPs or PAs, and are not the same as DOs in Britain, where they can only do OMT. In Britain, they are basically chiropractors, because they only train in OMT. In the US, they often sit for the same board exams as MDs (in addition to their own board exams), and many DOs licensed in Internal Medicine come out of MD (ACGME) accredited residencies. Actually, they have much more opportunity in this country as American-trained physicians than those MD students who go to the Caribbean med schools, as those are considered IMGs (international medical graduates). While it is true that majority of DOs end up in primary care medicine, there are osteopathic residency programs in fields like ophthalmology, derm, and orthopedic surgery.

IvanVic
10-19-2012, 05:25
That’s right. So how about we stop forcing medical providers to treat people. This compels people to buy insurance without Government coercion knowing they get treated only at the mercy of the provider.

Insurance and medical costs plummet; problem solved.

I know, this is cruel.

What is cruel is making the rest of us pay more in taxes. We are tapped out; compassion fatigue.

They have no idea of the current mood of the Country.

Right, let's have the kid who was in a car accident with a broken femur locked outside of the hospital so he can bleed to death because he has no insurance.

The morons that say this stuff are usually the same people who demand that we be referred to as a Christian nation.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

NeverMore1701
10-19-2012, 05:33
Right, let's have the kid who was in a car accident with a broken femur locked outside of the hospital so he can bleed to death because he has no insurance.

The morons that say this stuff are usually the same people who demand that we be referred to as a Christian nation.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Does your arm get tired using that broad brush?

IvanVic
10-19-2012, 05:38
Does your arm get tired using that broad brush?

What he said was a wingnut response. I don't see too many people, other than the wingnuts, ranting and raving about the "Christian nation" terminology.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

certifiedfunds
10-19-2012, 06:14
Right, let's have the kid who was in a car accident with a broken femur locked outside of the hospital so he can bleed to death because he has no insurance.

The morons that say this stuff are usually the same people who demand that we be referred to as a Christian nation.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

You are free to leave your credit card on file at the hospital to cover him. It's the Christian thing to do.

Credit limit too low? Start a non-profit and get moving raising money for these cases. It's the Christian thing to do.

Using the government to steal to provide him care or compelling others to treat him for free isn't Christian, it's evil.

IvanVic
10-19-2012, 06:49
You are free to leave your credit card on file at the hospital to cover him. It's the Christian thing to do.


I'm agnostic.


Credit limit too low? Start a non-profit and get moving raising money for these cases. It's the Christian thing to do.


That's nice. I'm not a Christian.


Using the government to steal to provide him care or compelling others to treat him for free isn't Christian, it's evil.

Using this logic, the military is stealing because it's funded with taxes, and you are technically taking part in a crime whenever you leave your house because you are driving on a stolen road.

Taxes are used to fund various programs, and god forbid, a portion of that money might be used to treat someone who comes into the ER on a stretcher because they were in a car accident and they have no health insurance. You want to pick the programs you don't like and call them stealing, while simultaneously justify all of the other uses of your tax dollar as completely legitimate. That's how a child thinks, not an adult that understands he or she can't get the candy bar at the checkout every single time.

certifiedfunds
10-19-2012, 07:01
Using this logic, the military is stealing because it's funded with taxes, and you are technically taking part in a crime whenever you leave your house because you are driving on a stolen road.



Logic fail.

Using taxes for common good applications, particularly those directly referenced in the Constitution isn't remotely comparable to taking money from one person and giving it directly to another.

I find it humorous yet disgusting the way socialists immediately flee to the "roads, police, fire, military" argument when the theft that is socialism is criticized. :upeyes:

Taxes are used to fund various programs, and god forbid, a portion of that money might be used to treat someone who comes into the ER on a stretcher because they were in a car accident and they have no health insurance. You want to pick the programs you don't like and call them stealing, while simultaneously justify all of the other uses of your tax dollar as completely legitimate. That's how a child thinks, not an adult that understands he or she can't get the candy bar at the checkout every single time.

To be clear, all taxes are theft. It really is cut and dry. Just because some theft is necessary to provide for the common good does not justify taking from one person and giving to another, which is what your ER example is. That is redistribution and the tool of scum-sucking socialists.

And, actually, it is YOU who are arguing for the candy bar at checkout "every single time". It isn't your candy bar. Get your booger-covered fingers off of it.

OctoberRust
10-19-2012, 07:38
Funny ... They took the young girl (Malala Yousufzai) shot by the Taliban to a facility in the U.K.

The U.S. certainly has talented doctors, but talent comes with a cost (as you pointed out). A sick persons ability to heal should not be related to his/her ability to pay.


Medical services are just that... A service.

Life was never fair to begin with, and no system will EVER make it fair, including your utopian view of socialism.

IvanVic
10-19-2012, 07:51
Logic fail.
Using taxes for common good applications, particularly those directly referenced in the Constitution isn't remotely comparable to taking money from one person and giving it directly to another.


It is true that any given person can't possibly use every single tax payer funded program, road or bridge in America all at the same time. Under your system, that is stealing because you personally are not using all of those programs and driving across all of those bridges.

Logic fail.
I find it humorous yet disgusting the way socialists immediately flee to the "roads, police, fire, military" argument when the theft that is socialism is criticized. :upeyes:


Those items are brought up because they point out all of the inconsistencies in your argument. You want to pay taxes only for the things you believe are legitimate uses of your tax dollars, or only pay for things that you are currently taking advantage of. That would be really nice, I agree. Unfortunately, that is not a realistic approach.

Logic fail.
To be clear, all taxes are theft.

You have agreed to live in a civilized society that provides certain things for its citizens. Those things are not free, despite how much you feel you are entitled to them. Contrarily, they are funded through tax dollars. That is not theft, that is an agreement between society and the individual. You are free to build a cabin in the woods and live off the land and pay nothing in taxes, assuming you do not earn an income that is taxable. However, if you wish to take part in society, that comes at a cost. I am sorry you can't have your cake and eat it too. I am sorry you feel as though you are entitled to enjoy the benefits of living in a civilized society without having to contribute to those benefits. As I understand it, the entitlement mentality is an infestation in America that is spreading more and more - it's too bad you don't see the hypocrisy in your position.

certifiedfunds
10-19-2012, 08:19
It is true that any given person can't possibly use every single tax payer funded program, road or bridge in America all at the same time. Under your system, that is stealing because you personally are not using all of those programs and driving across all of those bridges.


No. You fail again.

First there is the Constitutional case.

Second, you are wanting to muddy the water between common-good infrastructure and direct payments to individuals.

Those items are brought up because they point out all of the inconsistencies in your argument. You want to pay taxes only for the things you believe are legitimate uses of your tax dollars, or only pay for things that you are currently taking advantage of. That would be really nice, I agree. Unfortunately, that is not a realistic approach.


No. Fail again.

This is not a free for all, majority rule government the founders gave us. Government has certain legitimate duties and no more. Providing for common use infrastructure and defense is one.

That is not the same as taking money from one person to give to another.

Why do socialist always try to blur that line?

You have agreed to live in a civilized society that provides certain things for its citizens.

More socialist fail. You seem to have difficulty differentiating between "society" and "government". They are not the same.

Society can do provide whatever it pleases via free will. Government must stay within it's proscribed box. Why? Government has the monopoly on force. No charity can put a gun to my head and take my money to use anyway it sees fit.

Those things are not free, despite how much you feel you are entitled to them. Contrarily, they are funded through tax dollars. That is not theft, that is an agreement between society and the individual.

I have no agreement with society. Do you? Where is it?

You are free to build a cabin in the woods and live off the land and pay nothing in taxes, assuming you do not earn an income that is taxable. However, if you wish to take part in society, that comes at a cost.

:rofl:

Again, confusion between "society" and "government".

I am sorry you can't have your cake and eat it too.

As a person who most likely subsidizes you in this society, you're eating my cake. I'm what you call a cake provider. You people are cake consumers.

I am sorry you feel as though you are entitled to enjoy the benefits of living in a civilized society without having to contribute to those benefits. As I understand it, the entitlement mentality is an infestation in America that is spreading more and more - it's too bad you don't see the hypocrisy in your position.

You have no idea what you're talking about. When you become a net producer and not a net consumer, get back to me. I'm paying my share and yours too. Quit being a freeloading leech.

Flying-Dutchman
10-19-2012, 08:26
Taxes are used to fund various programs, and god forbid, a portion of that money might be used to treat someone who comes into the ER on a stretcher because they were in a car accident and they have no health insurance. You want to pick the programs you don't like and call them stealing, while simultaneously justify all of the other uses of your tax dollar as completely legitimate. That's how a child thinks, not an adult that understands he or she can't get the candy bar at the checkout every single time.
The Government spent $1.03 Trillion just on welfare last year coincidentally the amount of the budget deficit yet you want more, more, more.

Does anyone think we are under taxed? We are tapped out.

Taxes are going up in January thanks to Obama Care.

Maybe we will all just quit the rat race and let someone else pay our healthcare.

certifiedfunds
10-19-2012, 08:35
The Government spent $1.03 Trillion just on welfare last year coincidentally the amount of the budget deficit yet you want more, more, more.

Does anyone think we are under taxed? We are tapped out.

Taxes are going up in January thanks to Obama Care.

Maybe we will all just quit the rat race and let someone else pay our healthcare.

Actually, it was about $2.0T spent on welfare last year. Government only took in about $2.2T.

The leeches get every dime of tax revenue. Every other function of government is funded with debt.

certifiedfunds
10-19-2012, 08:38
It is true that any given person can't possibly use every single tax payer funded program, road or bridge in America all at the same time. Under your system, that is stealing because you personally are not using all of those programs and driving across all of those bridges.



Those items are brought up because they point out all of the inconsistencies in your argument. You want to pay taxes only for the things you believe are legitimate uses of your tax dollars, or only pay for things that you are currently taking advantage of. That would be really nice, I agree. Unfortunately, that is not a realistic approach.



You have agreed to live in a civilized society that provides certain things for its citizens. Those things are not free, despite how much you feel you are entitled to them. Contrarily, they are funded through tax dollars. That is not theft, that is an agreement between society and the individual. You are free to build a cabin in the woods and live off the land and pay nothing in taxes, assuming you do not earn an income that is taxable. However, if you wish to take part in society, that comes at a cost. I am sorry you can't have your cake and eat it too. I am sorry you feel as though you are entitled to enjoy the benefits of living in a civilized society without having to contribute to those benefits. As I understand it, the entitlement mentality is an infestation in America that is spreading more and more - it's too bad you don't see the hypocrisy in your position.

One thing these threads always do with remarkable clarity is distinguish between those in the producer class vs those in the parasitic class..........

IvanVic
10-19-2012, 08:42
No. You fail again.

First there is the Constitutional case.

Second, you are wanting to muddy the water between common-good infrastructure and direct payments to individuals.


Infrastructure is the only tax payer funded program that provides common-good benefits? That is merely your opinion, not a fact.


This is not a free for all, majority rule government the founders gave us. Government has certain legitimate duties and no more. Providing for common use infrastructure and defense is one.


If you believe those two items are the only legitimate programs that should be tax payer funded, that's fine, as long as you realize that it's nothing more than an opinion.


I have no agreement with society. Do you? Where is it?


You enter into that agreement when you benefit from all of the things that come along with being part of a civilized society. You want to take advantage of those things, yet do not want to contribute to the pot that pays for them. That is, by very definition, the entitlement mentality.


As a person who most likely subsidizes you in this society, you're eating my cake. I'm what you call a cake provider. You people are cake consumers.



You have no idea what you're talking about. When you become a net producer and not a net consumer, get back to me. I'm paying my share and yours too. Quit being a freeloading leech.

Ah, I was wondering when you were going to resort to thi. You demand that you be able to use and take advantage of the benefits of living in a civilized society, yet you do not want to contribute to that cause. When someone points this out, you throw a fit, start kicking and screaming, call them dirty names like socialist and leech, and then stomp off into the distance. That is not the behavior of an adult.

IvanVic
10-19-2012, 08:44
The Government spent $1.03 Trillion just on welfare last year coincidentally the amount of the budget deficit yet you want more, more, more.


If would help if you read my posts instead of making things up. I do not want "more". We have never left sick people die in the parking lots of hospitals.


Taxes are going up in January thanks to Obama Care.

Maybe we will all just quit the rat race and let someone else pay our healthcare.

Yep, which is why I detailed a list of those tax increases i the political section in an effort to describe why Obamacare should be repealed.

certifiedfunds
10-19-2012, 08:47
Infrastructure is the only tax payer funded program that provides common-good benefits? That is merely your opinion, not a fact.



If you believe those two items are the only legitimate programs that should be tax payer funded, that's fine, as long as you realize that it's nothing more than an opinion.



You enter into that agreement when you benefit from all of the things that come along with being part of a civilized society. You want to take advantage of those things, yet do not want to contribute to the pot that pays for them. That is, by very definition, the entitlement mentality.



Ah, I was wondering when you were going to resort to thi. You demand that you be able to use and take advantage of the benefits of living in a civilized society, yet you do not want to contribute to that cause. When someone points this out, you throw a fit, start kicking and screaming, call them dirty names like socialist and leech, and then stomp off into the distance. That is not the behavior of an adult.

How do I benefit from paying for another person's healthcare?

IvanVic
10-19-2012, 08:55
How do I benefit from paying for another person's healthcare?

You mean how do you benefit from our country having a policy of not leaving people with life threatening emergencies to die in the parking lot outside of the ER room?

Well, first of all, caring for people who have life threatening emergencies is part of living in a civilized society composed of good and decent people. If you think that our society would be better off if we turned away people at the ER that have life threatening emergencies, that is your opinion, but that is certainly not indicative of a civilized society, nor is it indicative of a good and generous people, nor is it indicative of a Christian nation, which is by far the largest religious affiliation in this country.

Additionally, you benefit because one day your brother, your sister, your mother, your father, your son, your daughter, your cousin, your friend or anyone else you might care about, could be one of those people who needs immediate care for a life threatening injury, heart attack, etc., and does not have health insurance. This is one of many ways in which you would benefit from this, excluding all of the societal pitfalls that would result from what you're advocating.

certifiedfunds
10-19-2012, 08:59
If would help if you read my posts instead of making things up. I do not want "more".

Bull. You're here advocating for Obamacare. That is "more". Much, much more. My healthcare costs and taxes are going up because of it.

We have never left sick people die in the parking lots of hospitals.


Which is, in fact, at the root of the problem.

Nothing in this country will improve until we have the courage to let people who won't provide for themselves, to die in the parking lot.

michael_b
10-19-2012, 09:02
You mean how do you benefit from our country having a policy of not leaving people with live threatening emergencies to die in the parking lot outside of the ER room?

Well, first of all, caring for people who have life threatening emergencies is part of living in a civilized society composed of good and decent people. If you think that our society would be better off if we turned away people at the ER that have life threatening emergencies, that is your opinion, but that is certainly not indicative of a civilized society, nor is it indicative of a good and generous people, nor is it indicative of a Christian nation, which is by far the largest religious affiliation in this country.

Additionally, you benefit because one day your brother, your sister, your mother, your father, your son, your daughter, your cousin, your friend or anyone else you might care about, could be one of those people who needs immediate care for a life threatening injury, heart attack, etc., and does not have health insurance. This is one of many ways in which you would benefit from this, excluding all of the societal pitfalls that would result from what you're advocating.

There's already laws in place to covet life threatening ER visits for those without healthcare on the govt. dime.

If Obamacare had been about protecting people it would have been a much simpler less invasive bill. It would have provided a govt. back insuance program for Jose who couldn't afford to buy their own.

The US govt. has something like 6 separate health plans they could have used already in place.

This bill was simply a payoff to the Insuance and drug companies.




-On mobile

certifiedfunds
10-19-2012, 09:03
You mean how do you benefit from our country having a policy of not leaving people with live threatening emergencies to die in the parking lot outside of the ER room?

Well, first of all, caring for people who have life threatening emergencies is part of living in a civilized society composed of good and decent people.

I agree. Charity is a beautiful thing. What you advocate for is forced labor and theft. That is evil.

Additionally, you and I both know that what you're talking about here is much, much more than just emergency situations.

If you think that our society would be better off if we turned away people at the ER that have life threatening emergencies, that is your opinion, but that is certainly not indicative of a civilized society, nor is it indicative of a good and generous people, nor is it indicative of a Christian nation, which is by far the largest religious affiliation in this country.



You still can't seem to differentiate between "society" and "government".

Additionally, you benefit because one day your brother, your sister, your mother, your father, your son, your daughter, your cousin, your friend or anyone else you might care about, could be one of those people who needs immediate care for a life threatening injury, heart attack, etc., and does not have health insurance. This is one of many ways in which you would benefit from this, excluding all of the societal pitfalls that would result from what you're advocating.

Assuming that never happens, I don't benefit. I just pay for it all. I just pay for the parasites.

IvanVic
10-19-2012, 09:05
Bull. You're here advocating for Obamacare.

No, I'm not. If you want to make things up and ignore what I'm actually saying, I see no point in debating this with you. Obamacare has nothing to do with what I am advocating. What I am advocating is something we have been doing for a long time.

IvanVic
10-19-2012, 09:06
There's already laws in place to covet life threatening ER visits for those without healthcare on the govt. dime.


And I am merely advocating that we continue to not leave people die in parking lots outside of ER rooms. So apparently we are in agreement.


If Obamacare had been about protecting people it would have been a much simpler less invasive bill.

I'm not talking about Obamacare. In case you haven't noticed, the thread has gone a bit off topic.

IvanVic
10-19-2012, 09:08
Assuming that never happens, I don't benefit. I just pay for it all. I just pay for the parasites.

Assuming I never drive across the bridge on the other side of the city, I don't benefit, I just pay for it all. :upeyes:

That's a pretty big assumption. Additionally, let's say someone you cared about showed up to the ER. They have just been in a car accident and have life threatening injuries, yet they do not have health insurance. Under our current system, that person would be treated. Would you be standing out there with a picket sign telling them to lock them outside and let them die?

dugo
10-19-2012, 09:34
I'm agnostic.



That's nice. I'm not a Christian.



Using this logic, the military is stealing because it's funded with taxes, and you are technically taking part in a crime whenever you leave your house because you are driving on a stolen road.

Taxes are used to fund various programs, and god forbid, a portion of that money might be used to treat someone who comes into the ER on a stretcher because they were in a car accident and they have no health insurance. You want to pick the programs you don't like and call them stealing, while simultaneously justify all of the other uses of your tax dollar as completely legitimate. That's how a child thinks, not an adult that understands he or she can't get the candy bar at the checkout every single time.

Of course, just like a tremendous amount of tax money is wasted or used in inappropriate or even sometimes corrupt ways, there are a lot of people who take unreasonable and unfair advantage of the medical system the way it is. A tremendous number of people go to the emergency room for non-emergencies, must be treated, and don't ever intend to pay.

It would be an easier discussion if we were talking mostly about serious incidents. We are mostly not.

You and I may not feel it is a problem, but the people who actually produce all that money that pays for all that free care -- and all that other free stuff -- may be understandably disappointed that to have little or no recourse when the priviledges it provides are widely abused by those both at the top and the bottom of the economic power curve.

I have not been to a doctor in a long time. I have a right not to go. I don't have a right to make someone else take care of me if I can help it. That's the first point to address. Later, if you are still in the discussion, then you can eventually get to the part where someone is severly injured in an accident.

Ed/ Dont' get me wrong. I don't think ObamaCare is going to solve any of these problems, except to create more payers.
Looks like it will make some other serious stuff (like controlling of care by folks with conflicting interests) much worse.

certifiedfunds
10-19-2012, 09:36
Assuming I never drive across the bridge on the other side of the city, I don't benefit, I just pay for it all. :upeyes:



You do not have to drive across the bridge to benefit from it. The goods and services you consume will cross it. Again, common good and no direct transfer of money seized from one person and given to another.

That's a pretty big assumption. Additionally, let's say someone you cared about showed up to the ER. They have just been in a car accident and have life threatening injuries, yet they do not have health insurance. Under our current system, that person would be treated. Would you be standing out there with a picket sign telling them to lock them outside and let them die?

No. I will pay for it. Why would I let my friend or relative die? I'll write the check. My GIFT to them. THAT is Christian.

Tell me again why I should be forced to pay for someone's care whom I don't even know?

certifiedfunds
10-19-2012, 09:38
No, I'm not. If you want to make things up and ignore what I'm actually saying, I see no point in debating this with you. Obamacare has nothing to do with what I am advocating. What I am advocating is something we have been doing for a long time.

This thread is about Obamacare. Why are you weighing in?

IvanVic
10-19-2012, 09:42
Of course, just like a tremendous amount of tax money is wasted or used in inappropriate ways, there are a lot of people who take unreasonable advantage of the medical system the way it is. A tremendous number of people go to the emergency room for non-emergencies, must be treated, and don't intend to pay. It would be an easier discussion if we were talking mostly about serious incidents. We are mostly not.

I am, which is why I have stipulated that they are life threatening, legitimate emergencies. If someone shows up with a hangnail, they should be turned away. I think we all agree that the ER should not be primary care.

IvanVic
10-19-2012, 09:44
You do not have to drive across the bridge to benefit from it. The goods and services you consume will cross it.

What if it's a bridge too small for big rigs, then what? What if it's a road that does not ever see a commercial vehicle transporting goods?


No. I will pay for it. Why would I let my friend or relative die? I'll write the check. My GIFT to them. THAT is Christian.


And if you couldn't afford it? What if you were no longer alive and that person was your grandson or granddaughter?

certifiedfunds
10-19-2012, 09:48
What if it's a bridge too small for big rigs, then what? What if it's a road that does not ever see a commercial vehicle transporting goods?


Your argument has reached the point of being pathetic.

How's this? Your taxpayer-funded home health nurse will drive across it to come change your diaper.

And if you couldn't afford it? What if you were no longer alive and that person was your grandson or granddaughter?

But I can. I saw to that with 40 years of sacrifices and good choices. It's called taking care of one's own.

The trust will be there. My kids will be there. After the point of the relatives that I actually know, they're on their own.

IvanVic
10-19-2012, 10:15
Your argument has reached the point of being pathetic.


There are hundreds of thousands of roads in America that are not used for commercial trucking or the transportation of goods. If you need to deny that so your argument has a leg to stand on, be my guest.


But I can. I saw to that with 40 years of sacrifices and good choices. It's called taking care of one's own.

The trust will be there. My kids will be there. After the point of the relatives that I actually know, they're on their own.

Well, we are assuming that it's care you can cover financially. Unless you are independently, exceedingly wealthy, a scenario could easily arise that you could not afford, especially for someone without health insurance. But Okay, since you refuse to answer my hypothetical when it involves you, let's present a real scenario. The person in question is not you, it's someone who has significantly less income than you do. They can't afford to write a check to the hospital when their son shows up to the ER with a serious injury from a car accident. Should they be left to die in the parking lot, or should we care for them as we currently do?

Taphius
10-19-2012, 10:24
There are hundreds of thousands of roads in America that are not used for commercial trucking or the transportation of goods. If you need to deny that so your argument has a leg to stand on, be my guest.



Well, we are assuming that it's care you can cover financially. Unless you are independently, exceedingly wealthy, a scenario could easily arise that you could not afford, especially for someone without health insurance. But Okay, since you refuse to answer my hypothetical when it involves you, let's present a real scenario. The person in question is not you, it's someone who has significantly less income than you do. They can't afford to write a check to the hospital when their son shows up to the ER with a serious injury from a car accident. Should they be left to die in the parking lot, or should we care for them as we currently do?


Payment plan, my burden is not for someone else's back unless they want it to be. My last/only car accident was when I was uninsured and I paid 100% of it on a payment plan (including the critical care ride). Portions came from my college spending/savings but it got paid.

certifiedfunds
10-19-2012, 10:26
There are hundreds of thousands of roads in America that are not used for commercial trucking or the transportation of goods. If you need to deny that so your argument has a leg to stand on, be my guest.



Well, we are assuming that it's care you can cover financially. Unless you are independently, exceedingly wealthy, a scenario could easily arise that you could not afford, especially for someone without health insurance. But Okay, since you refuse to answer my hypothetical when it involves you, let's present a real scenario. The person in question is not you, it's someone who has significantly less income than you do. They can't afford to write a check to the hospital when their son shows up to the ER with a serious injury from a car accident. Should they be left to die in the parking lot, or should we care for them as we currently do?

False dichotomy. We need to address the root cause of these problems.

Then the answer looks like reduced hospital bills, reduced taxes, charitable foundations to cover the costs for the indigent. And less theft.

certifiedfunds
10-19-2012, 10:28
There are hundreds of thousands of roads in America that are not used for commercial trucking or the transportation of goods. If you need to deny that so your argument has a leg to stand on, be my guest.



Well, we are assuming that it's care you can cover financially. Unless you are independently, exceedingly wealthy, a scenario could easily arise that you could not afford, especially for someone without health insurance. But Okay, since you refuse to answer my hypothetical when it involves you, let's present a real scenario. The person in question is not you, it's someone who has significantly less income than you do. They can't afford to write a check to the hospital when their son shows up to the ER with a serious injury from a car accident. Should they be left to die in the parking lot, or should we care for them as we currently do?
Re: public funded roads not being used for commerce -- more bull. Show me one.

IvanVic
10-19-2012, 11:09
Payment plan, my burden is not for someone else's back unless they want it to be. My last/only car accident was when I was uninsured and I paid 100% of it on a payment plan (including the critical care ride). Portions came from my college spending/savings but it got paid.

I can appreciate that as a solution, although you'd have to work in a contingency for the people who would default or declare bankruptcy.

False dichotomy. We need to address the root cause of these problems.

Then the answer looks like reduced hospital bills, reduced taxes, charitable foundations to cover the costs for the indigent. And less theft.

I agree, but you didn't answer the question. Someone shows up with life threatening injuries from a car accident, no health insurance, they can't afford to pay out of pocket. Should they be left to die, or should we care for them as our current system has done in the past?

Re: public funded roads not being used for commerce -- more bull. Show me one.

There are many neighborhoods in America that the post office does not visit. They have a central box location where they go to pick up their mail. Those roads are not used for commercial trucking, and even if they were, unless you (you personally) live in that neighborhood, you're not benefiting from it, according to you - so that would make it stealing. Additionally, you have already stated that "all taxes are theft," so I'm not sure what the point of this divergence is, as you have already determined that you consider it to be theft, irrespective of the funds' purpose.

certifiedfunds
10-19-2012, 11:31
I agree, but you didn't answer the question. Someone shows up with life threatening injuries from a car accident, no health insurance, they can't afford to pay out of pocket. Should they be left to die, or should we care for them as our current system has done in the past?


Who is this "we" you keep referring to? Are you a surgeon? Do you own a hospital?

When an uninsured shows up on the ER ramp all jacked up, the on call surgeons, neurologists, radiologists, anesthesiologists all work on him knowing full well they won't get paid. Who are you to demand they do so? What kind of arrogance is that?

I did answer the question. Fix the problem, don't paper over it with other people's money. One step in fixing the problem is allowing people to die in the parking lot. It's easy to sit back in your easy chair and point the finger and tell OTHERS to work for free to care for that guy.

Kill Medicare and Medicaid, reduce taxes, end the mandate of caring for anyone who shows up at the ER. Allow charity to flourish. Fix the problem. Pushing it off on someone else with the force of law allows the problem to continue and get worse.

There are many neighborhoods in America that the post office does not visit. They have a central box location where they go to pick up their mail. Those roads are not used for commercial trucking, and even if they were, unless you (you personally) live in that neighborhood, you're not benefiting from it, according to you - so that would make it stealing.

1. In every locale I'm aware of, residential roads are paid for by the developer and then turned over to either an HOA or municipality.

2. Commercial trucking is not the definition of commerce. You want groceries at your store? It takes more than a truck. Junior has to be able to get there to stock the shelves.

Additionally, you have already stated that "all taxes are theft," so I'm not sure what the point of this divergence is, as you have already determined that you consider it to be theft, irrespective of the funds' purpose.

It is theft. All taxes are theft. Immoral, evil theft. Therefore it should be kept to an absolute minimum, like providing for the common good. Paying for someone else's healthcare is not "common good" because one person is paying and the other is benefiting.

Taphius
10-19-2012, 12:38
There are many neighborhoods in America that the post office does not visit. They have a central box location where they go to pick up their mail. Those roads are not used for commercial trucking, and even if they were, unless you (you personally) live in that neighborhood, you're not benefiting from it, according to you - so that would make it stealing. Additionally, you have already stated that "all taxes are theft," so I'm not sure what the point of this divergence is, as you have already determined that you consider it to be theft, irrespective of the funds' purpose.

We paid for those roads through our SIDS/LIDS assessed on our property as well as the fire hydrants/street lights/sewer pipes.

F350
10-19-2012, 12:47
Here ya go....

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/19/ohio-doctor-running-newspaper-ads-criticizing-obamacare-ahead-of-election/

IvanVic
10-19-2012, 13:47
Who is this "we" you keep referring to? Are you a surgeon? Do you own a hospital?


We, as in our health care system. That really required an explanation?


When an uninsured shows up on the ER ramp all jacked up, the on call surgeons, neurologists, radiologists, anesthesiologists all work on him knowing full well they won't get paid. Who are you to demand they do so? What kind of arrogance is that?


That is their policy, I am not demanding anything. Do you agree with that policy, yes or no? Health care providers would care for someone with life threatening injuries because that's what most of us would do in that situation.


I did answer the question. Fix the problem, don't paper over it with other people's money.

That does not answer the question. I did not ask "in 25 years supposing that this problem has been fixed, someone comes to the ER...." The question I asked applies to today, not 25 years from now.


One step in fixing the problem is allowing people to die in the parking lot.

Your solution to improve society is to let life threatening injury victims that come to the ER in an ambulance die in the parking lot? Gee, I wonder why your ideas haven't gained any ground with Americans, they're so insightful and articulate. I'm sure it's because you've got it all figured out, and everyone else is just too stupid to understand that letting car accident and heart attack victims die in hospital parking lots is really the pathway to American success.


It is theft. All taxes are theft. Immoral, evil theft.

Nobody is forcing you to pay any taxes, you are entering in to a social contract by participating and benefiting from a civilized society - part of that contract is contributing to the pot. Again, if you feel as though you are entitled to reap the benefits of society, yet you do not want to pay a single dime in taxes and want to shift that burden on to other people, I would say your entitlement mentality is just as bad as Sandra Fluke's, just on the opposite side of the spectrum.

certifiedfunds
10-19-2012, 16:38
We, as in our health care system. That really required an explanation?


First there isn't a "system". Second, you aren't one of the folks who are negatively affected by the burdens you want to place on others.

That is their policy, I am not demanding anything. Do you agree with that policy, yes or no? Health care providers would care for someone with life threatening injuries because that's what most of us would do in that situation.


Ahhh, so first it's "our system" but now it's "their policy". Actually, its the law that requires it.

Would they care for that person? Perhaps. If so, why the law? Why force them to work for free? How far are you willing to go to force them? Do you think officers should point guns at surgeons while they operate?

That does not answer the question. I did not ask "in 25 years supposing that this problem has been fixed, someone comes to the ER...." The question I asked applies to today, not 25 years from now.


If you don't address the root cause, in 25 years you'll simply have the same problem to a larger degree.

Your solution to improve society is to let life threatening injury victims that come to the ER in an ambulance die in the parking lot? Gee, I wonder why your ideas haven't gained any ground with Americans, they're so insightful and articulate. I'm sure it's because you've got it all figured out, and everyone else is just too stupid to understand that letting car accident and heart attack victims die in hospital parking lots is really the pathway to American success.


To answer your own question you have to ask yourself why charity once played a prominent role in caring for the poor but no longer does now that we've created the welfare state.

Then you'll understand why deciding to allow the uninsured to legally die in the parking lot will address the root cause of the problems you're whining about.

Nobody is forcing you to pay any taxes,

:rofl: If you actually pay taxes, and I'm not too confident you do, try stopping and see what happens.

you are entering in to a social contract by participating and benefiting from a civilized society - part of that contract is contributing to the pot.

So civilization = unrelenting taxation? To follow that logic, more taxes = more civilized?

What about those who don't contribute to the pot? Isn't that who we're talking about here? They don't contribute but they get it anyway?

BTW, I've not entered into any contract and neither have you. We live as tax cattle under a soft tyranny.....at least I do. You may be a parasite on the system.

Again, if you feel as though you are entitled to reap the benefits of society, yet you do not want to pay a single dime in taxes and want to shift that burden on to other people, I would say your entitlement mentality is just as bad as Sandra Fluke's, just on the opposite side of the spectrum.

A single dime? :rofl: I'm pretty sure I'd gladly swap tax bills with you.

Shift that burden to other people? Are you mentally challenged? At issue in this dialogue are people who want to force others to provide free healthcare to people who don't contribute. I'm contributing my ass off here.

So if I'm a net payer into this "system" and I object to having my money taken and given to others who AREN'T net payers, I now have an ENTITLEMENT MENTALITY according to you socialists?

Did you eat too many paint chips as a kid?

IvanVic
10-19-2012, 17:50
First there isn't a "system". Second, you aren't one of the folks who are negatively affected by the burdens you want to place on others.


I don't think that many Americans, minus a few people like yourself, see this as a negative, which is why your opinion on this matter has virtually zero support among Americans. I will gladly contribute, what, a few tenths of a penny out of my tax bill toward care given to people who show up to the ER with life threatening emergencies, as opposed to letting them die in the parking lot. That is part of of living in a civilized society. You are apparently yearning for an America that has never existed. If you do not feel such a cause is worth what probably amounts to a few tenths of a penny, then you are free to live off the land and avoid paying taxes all together. You can't pick and choose where your tax dollars go, unfortunately.


:rofl: If you actually pay taxes, and I'm not too confident you do, try stopping and see what happens.

What about those who don't contribute to the pot? Isn't that who we're talking about here? They don't contribute but they get it anyway?

BTW, I've not entered into any contract and neither have you. We live as tax cattle under a soft tyranny.....at least I do. You may be a parasite on the system.



A single dime? :rofl: I'm pretty sure I'd gladly swap tax bills with you.

Shift that burden to other people? Are you mentally challenged? At issue in this dialogue are people who want to force others to provide free healthcare to people who don't contribute. I'm contributing my ass off here.

So if I'm a net payer into this "system" and I object to having my money taken and given to others who AREN'T net payers, I now have an ENTITLEMENT MENTALITY according to you socialists?

Did you eat too many paint chips as a kid?

I've never met a successful, mature adult that rants and raves like this - but you seem to think you're the exception. Despite all of your chest thumping and overcompensating, I couldn't care less about your internet board claims and insults, other than acknowledging that they're indicative of your inability to articulate your point without them.

Socialism? You keep repeating malapropisms that you are seemingly unaware of, and I doubt that pointing them out would be very useful at this point.

dcc12
10-19-2012, 18:24
First what they are saying is you by the sake of being you have no control over you and must be taxed to be you.

Second by making insurance companies take everyone even those with "pre-existing conditions" they guarantee insurance companies will go broke close shop and leave the government as the single insurance company.

Third doctors pay will be decided by the government. Do you want to pick your heart surgeon or go with the person the government decides you need. Also with the government deciding what doctors will be payed all that can retire will.

dugo
10-19-2012, 19:29
I can appreciate that as a solution, although you'd have to work in a contingency for the people who would default or declare bankruptcy.

[]



There are many neighborhoods in America that the post office does not visit. They have a central box location where they go to pick up their mail. Those roads are not used for commercial trucking, and even if they were, unless you (you personally) live in that neighborhood, you're not benefiting from it, according to you - so that would make it stealing. Additionally, you have already stated that "[I]all taxes are theft," so I'm not sure what the point of this divergence is, as you have already determined that you consider it to be theft, irrespective of the funds' purpose.

Hasn't the Commerce Clause been expanded so far that even roads that are not "used for commerce" are considered instrumental to "Commerce" -- interstate, no less -- just because it is theoretically possible that at some time they Could be so used? So that they are part of "interstate commerce" whether they are used for "commerce" or not. Makes sense? No? Well, gee, I refuse to consider that it might not make sense. That's the way it works, anyway, so there isn't any reason to belabor the subject.

And we all need to pay for frivolous medical attention, sometimes excessive and unneeded, maybe not even helpful, because we are concerned in case our sons, whom we would apparently NOT want to have to pay for, get in a car accident. Hmmm ... There might be something left out of the thinking, there. Well, gee, lets concentrate on your son. That has to be good for all the people who work to pay for all that free frivolous care, and all that other free stuff.

(Could it be that personal self-serving motives are not a good basis for public service decisions? Hmmm... Nah! The important thing is that if my son got in a wreck he would be taken care of.)

Oh, well. My only concern now is how much we can take from the people who actually produce things before we remove enough of the incentive that they don't think it is worth all the risk, sweat and money it takes to keep producing. But then, nbo point in sweating that. I guess we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

Meanwhile, at least our sons will be ok, and we won't have to take care of them. That's what is important to me.

(If there are any to whom it is not obvious: sarcasm alert!)

DrMaxit
10-19-2012, 20:09
You people don't get it.

I will limit non professional employees to less than 29 hours. Period.

I this week was a final meeting to set prices of a device (let's put it this way, if you need it you won't argue with me over price. You have three choices, die, pay it, hope in the next 2 minutes you can find a cheaper alternative).

Since we don't know the full impact, prices to hospitals will increase over 50% next year.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

What do you do for a living?

El_Ron1
10-19-2012, 20:14
http://www.venamimundo.com/GrandesPersonajes/Kruschev/Kruschev-02.jpg

Nikita would be proud.

Flying-Dutchman
10-19-2012, 21:11
If would help if you read my posts instead of making things up. I do not want "more". We have never left sick people die in the parking lots of hospitals.

Yep, which is why I detailed a list of those tax increases i the political section in an effort to describe why Obamacare should be repealed.
Sorry I didn’t read your posts. Then we agree to repeal Obama Care.

If the role of Government was reduced to military, roads and justice the American people would have plenty of money left for charity so no one would be left to die without medical treatment.

Americans are generous.

If a charity hospital ran ads saying with no Government safety net people will die, a large inflow of donations would flood in.

When you give to those in need it gives you a good feeling.

When you write a check to the IRS the motivating emotion is fear.

muscogee
10-19-2012, 21:19
WHO needs socialized health care? I don't.

You haven't been to the hospital many times have you? You have no idea what it's going to cost you until several months after you get out. Our current system is an unworkable mess. We need some national standards.

muscogee
10-19-2012, 21:22
Government run Healthcare???????????

Someone please name a Government run Program that has been a success and did what it was intended to do and also done within budget.

Interstate highway system. Space program.

Flying-Dutchman
10-19-2012, 21:25
You haven't been to the hospital many times have you? You have no idea what it's going to cost you until several months after you get out. Our current system is an unworkable mess. We need some national standards.
It is a mess and needs to be fixed but Government is not the answer.

Social Security it turns out was a scam as I will not get anything after paying in.

But since Social Security was before my time there is nothing I could have done about it.

Obama Care is a new scam and something we can stop.

muscogee
10-19-2012, 21:28
If the federal government would get out of the way and let the states and free market operate with some minimal federal regulations, the system would operate freely and fairly.
We tried that for decades and things went from bad to worse. The leading cause of bankruptcy in the U.S. is medical costs. The majority of those forced into bankruptcy because of medical costs have insurance. The free market is not working freely or fairly. The question you can never get answered is, "What is this going to cost". If you can't get that answer then you can't shop around.

muscogee
10-19-2012, 21:52
It is a mess and needs to be fixed but Government is not the answer.

Social Security it turns out was a scam as I will not get anything after paying in.

Only if you let it happen.

M&P Shooter
10-20-2012, 00:37
It comes from a Muslim who's wife hates America:whistling:

NeverMore1701
10-20-2012, 05:09
This just in: life not fair.

Story at 11.

Big Bird
10-20-2012, 06:07
We tried that for decades and things went from bad to worse. The leading cause of bankruptcy in the U.S. is medical costs. The majority of those forced into bankruptcy because of medical costs have insurance. The free market is not working freely or fairly. The question you can never get answered is, "What is this going to cost". If you can't get that answer then you can't shop around.


1. We don't have a free market health care system right now--its one of the most highy regulated controlled and subsidized industries in the world!

2. Medical costs have always been a problem for people--it won't get better when the entire population shifts its individual costs to everyone it will get worse--for everyone!

3. Medical Insurance is highly regulated and specific state and federal mandates as to what and when an insurance policy MUST cover don't allow competition or choice. Federal law in particular makes employer provided health insurance very expensive...you must cover this, and this and this...it obscene.

4. Medicare and Medicaid set prices for most services and the flow of Federal Money into theses programs artificially inflates the cost of healthcare.

We do not have a free or fair market in healthcare. There is no way you can make that case. It was much better back in the 50's, 60s and 70's before politicians stuck their fingers into the pot and we started Medicare and Medicaid in the 60's. Before those program people weren't dying in the streets. I promise--the poor and indigent got care before the big government stepped in and decided to point a gun at our head and TELL us that we had to pay for everyone else.


Geesh...I can't believe the hyperbole and dogmatism that invades these debates.

Seale Team
10-20-2012, 08:57
just what I wanted: health care service & competence ala the Dept. of Motor Vehicles and US Post Office

The above speaks volumes.

Drjones
10-20-2012, 10:11
yep government bad, anarchy good. We don't need roads, librarys, schools, parks, or any agency for that matter. The wild west was such a neat place. :whistling:

So, freedom, or the absence of govt. intervention, is anarchy to you?

There really are no more democrats anymore, just through and through communists.

Should I check in with the govt. before going to the range today? Get approval before having a cup of coffee? I didn't...does that mean I'm an anarchist?

Drjones
10-20-2012, 10:14
Interstate highway system. Space program.


Building roads actually IS a constitutionally-delegated government power; dictating the minutea of health care is certainly not.

As for space, who knows if the private sector couldn't have done it better, faster, cheaper. Maybe we'd already have humans on mars if the private sector had led the charge...

G29Reload
10-20-2012, 12:47
Just curious as to what you guys have thought. On paper it sounds pretty good, but I'm on the fence about it. s

It is the worst thing in the history of the Republic.

-It takes over 1/7th of private economy

-It dictates what a private sector company can charge for its products,

-limits its profits by fiat and

-legitimizes theft by forcing a company involved in Risk Management to take pre-existing losses in the form of pre-existing conditions.

Slavery was made illegal more than 150 years ago. By making healthcare a "right", it means anyone can demand it at any time, any place, any price…or no price at all. Except that healthcare is about delivery…Doctors, Nurses, pharmacies, hospitals. They no longer are sovereigns, but instruments acting at the behest of the State.

When the Government serves the people, that's democracy.
When the people serve the government, that's communism.

Which, we all had believed, was a failed ideology.

With limited resources and unlimited demand….you'll get healthcare…eventually. And it won't necessarily be the healthcare you want. It's the healthcare the government decides they'll pay for.

When the reward for such demanding work is no longer there, doctors will start to pursue other professions. Healthcare in this country will become pretty grim.


And the only chance we have left to stop Obamacare is to elect Mitt Romney and a Republican Senate.

Left-Right
10-20-2012, 14:37
It was much better back in the 50's, 60s and 70's before politicians stuck their fingers into the pot and we started Medicare and Medicaid in the 60's. Before those program people weren't dying in the streets. I promise--the poor and indigent got care before the big government stepped in and decided to point a gun at our head and TELL us that we had to pay for everyone else.


Where did you read that, from Ron Paul's website? Evidence suggests the contrary, which is why Medicare and Medicaid came into existence and why these programs remain popular today.

The reason Medicare is such a flashpoint today can be traced to three things: 1) a fee-for-service payment schedule that encourages extra services, 2) technology advances like diagnostic imaging and new surgical procedures like joint replacement, and 3) the practice of spending extraordinary amounts of money for end-of-life care without the evidence to support such measures.

The healthcare system and healthcare insurance, two separate animals, are complex and costly beasts. Obamacare is an attempt to level the playing field on the insurance side (it doesn't address the fundamental nature of the fee-for-service payment system).

If you're a 30 year old diabetic and get a new job, the company's insurance provider has to insure you, and the cost to you won't be more than your co-workers, provided you elect the same level of coverage. That's the way it's been in the since the forties. That's why people with pre-existing conditions can move from company to company and remain insured.

Obamacare expands that kind of coverage to the population at large- meaning two things- that there will be
guaranteed issue where no one is denied coverage, and community rating, where everyone pays the same rate.

So now that same 30 year old has the freedom to consider striking out on their own at some point without fear that they'll be then un-insurable as an individual due to their previously acquired illness. And they can get insurance at rates that are the same as those for healthy individuals. That happens because of the mandate, where we eliminate the free-riders who get their healthcare through the E.R., don't pay and pass their costs on to the rest of us.

In order for that to work, there needs to be a mandate that requires everybody to participate. That is what will keep the rates lower than they otherwise would be.

Sounds like a step in the right direction to me.

By the way, I'm a Republican.

Flying-Dutchman
10-20-2012, 15:24
Obamacare expands that kind of coverage to the population at large- meaning two things- that there will be
guaranteed issue where no one is denied coverage, and community rating, where everyone pays the same rate.

So now that same 30 year old has the freedom to consider striking out on their own at some point without fear that they'll be then un-insurable as an individual due to their previously acquired illness. And they can get insurance at rates that are the same as those for healthy individuals. That happens because of the mandate, where we eliminate the free-riders who get their healthcare through the E.R., don't pay and pass their costs on to the rest of us.

In order for that to work, there needs to be a mandate that requires everybody to participate. That is what will keep the rates lower than they otherwise would be.

Sounds like a step in the right direction to me.

By the way, I'm a Republican.
This would work only in a utopia.

We have 49% who pay in nothing. How will they buy insurance?

33% get a check from the Government (not including retirees and military).

46 million are so helpless they need food stamps to eat.

Mandatory health insurance would work if we were a nation with a strong homogeneous middle class.

How many can pay this $12,500 per year mandatory Obama Care Bronze Plan Premium?

The taxpayers are tapped out. You cannot tax us into prosperity.

Remember the Supreme Court called Obama Care a tax (boy did they have to twist and turn to make this legit).

Atlas
10-20-2012, 15:37
...In order for that to work, there needs to be a mandate that requires everybody to participate. That is what will keep the rates lower than they otherwise would be.

Sounds like a step in the right direction to me.

By the way, I'm a Republican.


Avoiding any name-calling here, what you are advocating is fascism.

Left-Right
10-20-2012, 16:05
Call it what you want, but that's essentially what Romney signed into law.

Flying-Dutchman
10-20-2012, 16:39
Call it what you want, but that's essentially what Romney signed into law.
This is the thanks Romney gets for cooperating with the Democrats; a lesson learned.

Now Romney will be working with the Tea Party if we are lucky and he wins.

Even the Mafia needs victims to stay in business. The Government is running out of suckers (taxpayers). Everyone is on the take.

Obama Care is like a bulb burning brightest before it burns out. The welfare state will collapse.

Look at California. 10 million new arrivals in the last 20 years yet only 150,000 pay taxes; guaranteed system collapse.

AZson
10-20-2012, 16:57
Lets put it this way, why should it take 2000 pages to get a national insurance when all they need to do is just make everybody eligible for medicare, just raise our contributions and why are our senators not ditching their taxpayer funded healthcare for it?
I think Pelosi said it the best when a senator asked how could they read the bill with only few days before the vote and she replied you need to pass it before you read it.

engineer151515
10-20-2012, 17:04
..............
In order for that to work, there needs to be a mandate that requires everybody to participate. That is what will keep the rates lower than they otherwise would be.

Sounds like a step in the right direction to me.

By the way, I'm a Republican.

Really?

What in the world convinces yourself that you are a "Republican" with a philosophy like that?

Thanks for your Republican vote but, seriously, you will much more comfortable in the American Communist Party.

FAS1
10-20-2012, 17:05
Where did you read that, from Ron Paul's website? Evidence suggests the contrary, which is why Medicare and Medicaid came into existence and why these programs remain popular today.

The reason Medicare is such a flashpoint today can be traced to three things: 1) a fee-for-service payment schedule that encourages extra services, 2) technology advances like diagnostic imaging and new surgical procedures like joint replacement, and 3) the practice of spending extraordinary amounts of money for end-of-life care without the evidence to support such measures.

The healthcare system and healthcare insurance, two separate animals, are complex and costly beasts. Obamacare is an attempt to level the playing field on the insurance side (it doesn't address the fundamental nature of the fee-for-service payment system).

If you're a 30 year old diabetic and get a new job, the company's insurance provider has to insure you, and the cost to you won't be more than your co-workers, provided you elect the same level of coverage. That's the way it's been in the since the forties. That's why people with pre-existing conditions can move from company to company and remain insured.

Obamacare expands that kind of coverage to the population at large- meaning two things- that there will be
guaranteed issue where no one is denied coverage, and community rating, where everyone pays the same rate.

So now that same 30 year old has the freedom to consider striking out on their own at some point without fear that they'll be then un-insurable as an individual due to their previously acquired illness. And they can get insurance at rates that are the same as those for healthy individuals. That happens because of the mandate, where we eliminate the free-riders who get their healthcare through the E.R., don't pay and pass their costs on to the rest of us.

In order for that to work, there needs to be a mandate that requires everybody to participate. That is what will keep the rates lower than they otherwise would be.

Sounds like a step in the right direction to me.

By the way, I'm a Republican.

Is there a mandate in there for proper diet and exercise to help overcome some of the "pre-existing conditions" that you want the rest of us to pay for? Poor life choices and a true lack of personal responsibility is a huge problem with this social program as it is with every other one we have.
Sure, some people truly need help, but it's probably more like 10-15% not the amount of people that take advantage of the programs. It will fail as people just quit trying and find it's much easier to get in the cart than pull it


Glenn
www.fas1safe.com

engineer151515
10-20-2012, 17:09
It is the worst thing in the history of the Republic.

-It takes over 1/7th of private economy

-It dictates what a private sector company can charge for its products,

-limits its profits by fiat and

-legitimizes theft by forcing a company involved in Risk Management to take pre-existing losses in the form of pre-existing conditions.

Slavery was made illegal more than 150 years ago. By making healthcare a "right", it means anyone can demand it at any time, any place, any price…or no price at all. Except that healthcare is about delivery…Doctors, Nurses, pharmacies, hospitals. They no longer are sovereigns, but instruments acting at the behest of the State.

When the Government serves the people, that's democracy.
When the people serve the government, that's communism.

Which, we all had believed, was a failed ideology.

With limited resources and unlimited demand….you'll get healthcare…eventually. And it won't necessarily be the healthcare you want. It's the healthcare the government decides they'll pay for.

When the reward for such demanding work is no longer there, doctors will start to pursue other professions. Healthcare in this country will become pretty grim.


And the only chance we have left to stop Obamacare is to elect Mitt Romney and a Republican Senate.

I agree.

Obamacare, unchecked, will give you Cuban healthcare.

Free aspirin for everybody.

Heart bypass surgery for the politically chosen (via panel).


Medical research and the introduction of new drugs/techniques will enter a scientific "dark ages" that will last who know how long. Good bye innovation not advocated by the government. Medicine will fail just like supposedly "green energy" companies are today.
Sad.
I don't see anybody rushing to Cuba to get a triple by-pass to save their life.

DanaT
10-20-2012, 17:21
The good thing is now, I get to hire people part time.

So you Obama car supporter (yeah you muscogee as one).

How do does it make you feel that my non-professional employees (who would have gotten 40 hour, plus overtime) will now be capped at 29 hours and no hours over that ever approved to make sure they dont get to 30 hours because of Obama care?

Diesel McBadass
10-20-2012, 17:35
The good thing is now, I get to hire people part time.

So you Obama car supporter (yeah you muscogee as one).

How do does it make you feel that my non-professional employees (who would have gotten 40 hour, plus overtime) will now be capped at 29 hours and no hours over that ever approved to make sure they dont get to 30 hours because of Obama care?

im surprised this isnt a bigger issue, ive seen democrats go insane when finding out

DanaT
10-20-2012, 17:52
im surprised this isnt a bigger issue, ive seen democrats go insane when finding out

they cannot do math.

They cannot figure out that if they work 29 hours instead of 40 (or more) their paychecks go down 25%.

magnum62
10-20-2012, 18:20
IT is not about healthcare, it is about government control..

muscogee
10-20-2012, 18:23
The good thing is now, I get to hire people part time.

So you Obama car supporter (yeah you muscogee as one).

How do does it make you feel that my non-professional employees (who would have gotten 40 hour, plus overtime) will now be capped at 29 hours and no hours over that ever approved to make sure they dont get to 30 hours because of Obama care?

That's why we need single payer.

DanaT
10-20-2012, 18:26
That's why we need single payer.

Why is "that"?

Worried you will be the next one that will have hours cut?

engineer151515
10-20-2012, 18:26
That's why we need single payer.

Single payer won't get you your heart surgery.

Waiting list


Just ask the Canadians.

DanaT
10-20-2012, 18:27
Or did you miss my posts that because of Obama care, we are RAISING prices? How does RAISING prices on medical devices save money?

muscogee
10-20-2012, 20:17
Or did you miss my posts that because of Obama care, we are RAISING prices? How does RAISING prices on medical devices save money?

Health care needs to be taken out of the hands of the employers. People like you don't need to have control of other people's health care because you don't care about anything but your bottom line. You don't care who gets hurt by your actions.

muscogee
10-20-2012, 20:19
Single payer won't get you your heart surgery.

Waiting list


Just ask the Canadians.

I don't hear them wanting a system like ours.

Green_Manelishi
10-20-2012, 20:22
Health care needs to be taken out of the hands of the employers. People like you don't need to have control of other people's health care because you don't care about anything but your bottom line. You don't care who gets hurt by your actions.

Health CARE needs also to be taken out of the hands of insurance companies and government. INSURANCE against a major illness or operation needs to be in the hands of insurance agencies. What the GUBMINT is promising is neither health care, nor insurance; it's promising you will be forced to buy "insurance", or pay a fine, and that insurance companies must cover the cost of treating preexisting conditions.

wingtip4
10-20-2012, 20:48
The private sector had their chance with health care and ended up with massive fraud and abuse, skyrocking insurance payments, and bankrupting millions of Americans. I don't understand the hysteria, The health care act is no different than requiring car insurance, enrollment in social security, pay roll taxes, unemployment insurance, paying income tax, or many other things we've done for years. If it doesn't work, it'll change, but don't defend the current system with that "private sector is all good" line. The private sector is all about making profits at other people's expense, and worships the God of money. Capitolism is not in the constitution.

Taphius
10-20-2012, 21:00
The private sector had their chance with health care and ended up with massive fraud and abuse, skyrocking insurance payments, and bankrupting millions of Americans. I don't understand the hysteria, The health care act is no different than requiring car insurance, enrollment in social security, pay roll taxes, unemployment insurance, paying income tax, or many other things we've done for years. If it doesn't work, it'll change, but don't defend the current system with that "private sector is all good" line. The private sector is all about making profits at other people's expense, and worships the God of money. Capitolism is not in the constitution.

Healthcare hasn't been private since at least 1965 and looky when health care spending increases.

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/sites/www.intellectualtakeout.org/files/chart-graph/U.S.%20Health%20Care%20Spending.JPG
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1900_2012USb_13s1li011mcn_10t

Big Bird
10-20-2012, 21:10
Where did you read that, from Ron Paul's website? Evidence suggests the contrary, which is why Medicare and Medicaid came into existence and why these programs remain popular today.

The reason Medicare is such a flashpoint today can be traced to three things: 1) a fee-for-service payment schedule that encourages extra services, 2) technology advances like diagnostic imaging and new surgical procedures like joint replacement, and 3) the practice of spending extraordinary amounts of money for end-of-life care without the evidence to support such measures.

The healthcare system and healthcare insurance, two separate animals, are complex and costly beasts. Obamacare is an attempt to level the playing field on the insurance side (it doesn't address the fundamental nature of the fee-for-service payment system).

If you're a 30 year old diabetic and get a new job, the company's insurance provider has to insure you, and the cost to you won't be more than your co-workers, provided you elect the same level of coverage. That's the way it's been in the since the forties. That's why people with pre-existing conditions can move from company to company and remain insured.

Obamacare expands that kind of coverage to the population at large- meaning two things- that there will be
guaranteed issue where no one is denied coverage, and community rating, where everyone pays the same rate.

So now that same 30 year old has the freedom to consider striking out on their own at some point without fear that they'll be then un-insurable as an individual due to their previously acquired illness. And they can get insurance at rates that are the same as those for healthy individuals. That happens because of the mandate, where we eliminate the free-riders who get their healthcare through the E.R., don't pay and pass their costs on to the rest of us.

In order for that to work, there needs to be a mandate that requires everybody to participate. That is what will keep the rates lower than they otherwise would be.

Sounds like a step in the right direction to me.

By the way, I'm a Republican.

Well, since I lived through the 60s and 70s I have a LITTLE experience with the matter.

What you are advocating is NOT insurance. What you are describing is a medical welfare program. An uninsurable risk that we must provide healthcare to is not insurance. Its just offloading the guaranteed medical bills to other taxpayers. That's not insurance. Insurance companies don't sell homeowners policies to people who's home is already flooded nor to drivers who have already wrecked their car.

We supposedly live in a free country. But any nation that sticks a gun in your face and tells you you MUST buy something isn't free. You have made me your slave.

When politicians run healthcare they will provide medical coverage to people based on politics not need. Lest you think that's hyperbole simply look how they allocate money through the Social Security and Medicare systems. They take money from the least politically active and poorest demographic segments of the population (that would be 20, 30 and 40 year olds) and give it to the richest most politically active people! (The elderly hold the vast majority of the wealth in this nation BY FAR...and they vote) If you think government run healthcare will be any better you are off your gourd...

Why you believe giving some elected official THAT much power and control over your life is a good thing is disturbing to say the least.

sputnik767
10-20-2012, 21:11
Health care needs to be taken out of the hands of the employers. People like you don't need to have control of other people's health care because you don't care about anything but your bottom line. You don't care who gets hurt by your actions.

Why do you assume that he has any control over anyone's healthcare? Is he the primary care provider, or is he simply the entity that subsidizes health insurance? In the end, he is not responsible for providing any healthcare coverage, he chooses to do so. And since his primary goal is his bottom line (if it wasn't, he wouldn't be in business for long), he must ensure that it is maintained. Sometimes the government helps make his decision for him, which seems to be the case here. I have no problem with a healthcare law that actually addresses the current problems, but this isn't it. And a single-payer system is definitely not it. Here are a few reasons why: medical students come out with way too much debt to be paid an a socialized medicine pay scale (docs in Israel get paid roughly $50k per year, and cost of living is about the same as here), and much fewer people will go into medicine if the pay is cut. This will seriously exacerbate the looming primacy care provider shortage. Feel free to look up the difference in the number of MRI and CT machines here vs England. Suffice it to say, Americans have much easier access to these technologies. How long do you think people want to wait to determine that their head injury from a fall did not result in an epidural hemorrhage? How often do elderly people fall? When a few hours can make the difference between life an death, do you think people want to be transported 60 miles to the nearest hospital with a machine? Finally, I lived under a socialized healthcare system, and my grandmother nearly died under it. She needed surgery that they could not perform there, and the American system saved her life. Our system needs to be improved, made more efficient, cut waste, etc, but it does not need to be radically changed.

G29Reload
10-20-2012, 21:19
That's why we need single payer.

No we don't. That's the end right there.

Hard core commie socialism. A never ending boondoggle of government iron fisted control.

What we need is complete repeal, and free market reforms to let insurance be sold across state lines.

And have government stay the hell out of the way and start serving again rather than dictating what we have to do.

Big Bird
10-20-2012, 21:19
The private sector had their chance with health care and ended up with massive fraud and abuse, skyrocking insurance payments, and bankrupting millions of Americans. I don't understand the hysteria, The health care act is no different than requiring car insurance, enrollment in social security, pay roll taxes, unemployment insurance, paying income tax, or many other things we've done for years. If it doesn't work, it'll change, but don't defend the current system with that "private sector is all good" line. The private sector is all about making profits at other people's expense, and worships the God of money. Capitolism is not in the constitution.

1. President Obama just made the case that he got rid of $700 Billion in waste fraud and abuse in Medicare... That makes any waste fraud and abuse in the private a small private joke.

2. Profits are not made at other people's expense. Unlike the government nobody in the private sector puts a gun to your head and makes you enter into a commercial transaction. Profits are good. How long could a corporation stay in business without profits? How long could a worker keep his job without profits? Ho long would you have electricty, gasoline, a car, a computer, a doctor, an apple, an sandwich without allowing someone else to make a profit?

Geez...I can't believe I even have to explain this to someone.

And the words: "The pursuit of happiness" comes to mind...

Who the hell are you to tell me I can't be allowed a profit? Profits and success in business makes me happy. It keeps people on my payroll.

domin8ss
10-20-2012, 21:34
The private sector had their chance with health care and ended up with massive fraud and abuse, skyrocking insurance payments, and bankrupting millions of Americans. I don't understand the hysteria, The health care act is no different than requiring car insurance, enrollment in social security, pay roll taxes, unemployment insurance, paying income tax, or many other things we've done for years. If it doesn't work, it'll change, but don't defend the current system with that "private sector is all good" line. The private sector is all about making profits at other people's expense, and worships the God of money. Capitolism is not in the constitution.

Ironically, none of your examples are required in order to live. Working is a choice (for many the reason is obvious). Driving a car is optional. It should also be noted that not every state requires cat insurance. For example, New Hampshire doesn't require car insurance if the car is completely paid off. Payroll taxes are paid by employers for the employee they have working for them. One of the taxes you listed that is deducted from employees income caps out at $7,000 total regardless of how much they make. They other payroll taxes are not paid by the employee, but for the employee by the employer on behalf of the employee in order to receive a benefit in the future.

Imo, if you want a real solution to a broken healthcare system some things need to be done that Obamacare never touched.

1) The ability to buy insurance across state lines. This alone will lower costs because of increased competition among health insurance companies.

2) Tort reform needs to be passed. It's too easy to due doctors. This has driven up the cost of medical malpractice insurance that hospitals typically pay for their staff, thus driving up the cost of healthcare. I'm not proposing that doctors and nurses be immune to litigation. I just wish civil suits would be withheld unless convicted of criminal wrongdoing or gross negligence. People don't realize medicine is practiced with the use of statistics. There is no single cure or solution that is 100% guaranteed to fix what ailes you. There is only a solution that is better than all others. It's all statistical.

I do like some things about Obamacare that I think should be kept.

1) Failure to cover for preexisting conditions. Yes, I know this drives up cost due to increased risk for medical insurance companies. I just think it's morally right.

2) Not capping maximum payouts for treatment. If it costs $100,000 to cure somebody of cancer, so be it. Again, it's morally right. No capping at $20,000, $10,000, our $50,000. However, should somebody be seriously ill, especially chronically, they should be considered higher risk, and just like car insurance, be able to charge higher premiums. Increased competition from being able to buy insurance across state lines will still make insurance more affordable.

The solutions are easier than Obamacare attempted to make them. We don't need hospitals to be fined 100's of thousands of dollars because a patient returns within 30 days due to complications from illnesses/diseases related to a failing heart. Obamacare does this, and will drive up healthcare costs.

Flying-Dutchman
10-20-2012, 21:51
The private sector had their chance with health care and ended up with massive fraud and abuse, skyrocking insurance payments, and bankrupting millions of Americans. I don't understand the hysteria, The health care act is no different than requiring car insurance, enrollment in social security, pay roll taxes, unemployment insurance, paying income tax, or many other things we've done for years. If it doesn't work, it'll change, but don't defend the current system with that "private sector is all good" line. The private sector is all about making profits at other people's expense, and worships the God of money. Capitolism is not in the constitution.
The Government is the fraud and abuse king.

You say if it does not work it will change.

No it will not. Look at Social Security. It will not change until the Government goes bankrupt or they pay people with worthless printed money.

In the meantime we are forced to pay into something they say is a Ponzi pyramid scheme.

Flying-Dutchman
10-20-2012, 21:53
All our lives we heard the BS; your vote counts. We are better than other countries because we have a representative republic.

So Ted Kennedy dies and Massachusetts of all places votes a Republican in to stop Obama Care. Voting matters, we stopped Obama Care.

Nope, they used dead Ted Kennedy’s vote to ram Obama Care through illegally.

After that, I will never vote for a Democrat ever again. These people should be in jail.

You cannot make the illegitimate Obama Care law legitimate with time.

certifiedfunds
10-20-2012, 22:10
The private sector had their chance with health care and ended up with massive fraud and abuse, skyrocking insurance payments, and bankrupting millions of Americans. I don't understand the hysteria, The health care act is no different than requiring car insurance, enrollment in social security, pay roll taxes, unemployment insurance, paying income tax, or many other things we've done for years. If it doesn't work, it'll change, but don't defend the current system with that "private sector is all good" line. The private sector is all about making profits at other people's expense, and worships the God of money. Capitolism is not in the constitution.

This may well be the most ignorant post I've ever read on GT......and that's really saying something.

certifiedfunds
10-20-2012, 22:17
Really?

What in the world convinces yourself that you are a "Republican" with a philosophy like that?

Thanks for your Republican vote but, seriously, you will much more comfortable in the American Communist Party.

Actually, the individual mandate was a Republican or "conservative" idea before it was a Progressive one.

Besides, lots of scum sucking Progressives in the Republican ranks. Lots of fascists too.

certifiedfunds
10-20-2012, 22:19
Health care needs to be taken out of the hands of the employers. People like you don't need to have control of other people's health care because you don't care about anything but your bottom line. You don't care who gets hurt by your actions.

Caring about the bottom line is why his employees have jobs. What world do you live in?

certifiedfunds
10-20-2012, 22:24
Healthcare hasn't been private since at least 1965 and looky when health care spending increases.

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/sites/www.intellectualtakeout.org/files/chart-graph/U.S.%20Health%20Care%20Spending.JPG
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1900_2012USb_13s1li011mcn_10t

If anyone can look at that graph and not finally understand that Medicare is the root cause of the health care cost problems I don't know what else it will take.

You want to fix the issue? Here's how:

End Medicare and Medicaid, cut the associated taxes.
20 or 30 year term catastrophic health insurance policies.
Day to day expenses covered out of pocket.

Done

JuneyBooney
10-20-2012, 22:46
Just curious as to what you guys have thought. On paper it sounds pretty good, but I'm on the fence about it. s

If it actually covered every American and they did not have to pay insurance then it would be fine. But it punishes people who don't have insurance and also raises costs for everyone already. Things that were covered before Obamacare are now extras and not covered.

Taphius
10-20-2012, 22:49
If anyone can look at that graph and not finally understand that Medicare is the root cause of the health care cost problems I don't know what else it will take.

You want to fix the issue? Here's how:

End Medicare and Medicaid, cut the associated taxes.
20 or 30 year term catastrophic health insurance policies.
Day to day expenses covered out of pocket.

Done

Student loan debt/college costs is probably very similar. Congrats on those gov backed student loans progressives.

certifiedfunds
10-20-2012, 22:51
Student loan debt/college costs is probably very similar. Congrats on those gov backed student loans progressives.

It is exactly the same paradigm.

wingtip4
10-20-2012, 23:41
I guess calling my opinions ignorant is a badge of honor. People fear what they don't understand and try to deny change. Your theories are admirable, but are not feasible or practical given the Republican blockade of truth.

rcamp
10-21-2012, 06:07
Government run Healthcare???????????

Someone please name a Government run Program that has been a success and did what it was intended to do and also done within budget.

exactly...and it will change the face of America forever, its not about providing anything, but taking everything. It's Communism. It's worse than people think. It's a bigger conspiracy than people believe. It is the Beast Power....uhhh..I'm not for it. There.

muscogee
10-21-2012, 06:26
Avoiding any name-calling here, what you are advocating is fascism.

No it's not. Where do you get your definition for fascism?

muscogee
10-21-2012, 06:29
Lets put it this way, why should it take 2000 pages to get a national insurance when all they need to do is just make everybody eligible for medicare, just raise our contributions and why are our senators not ditching their taxpayer funded healthcare for it?

It was written the way it was so insurance companies could make money on it. It's more of an insurance company enrichment bill than a health care bill.

muscogee
10-21-2012, 06:32
Health CARE needs also to be taken out of the hands of insurance companies and government. INSURANCE against a major illness or operation needs to be in the hands of insurance agencies. What the GUBMINT is promising is neither health care, nor insurance; it's promising you will be forced to buy "insurance", or pay a fine, and that insurance companies must cover the cost of treating preexisting conditions.

Interesting. What do yo mean by insurance agencies?

Big Bird
10-21-2012, 06:35
I guess calling my opinions ignorant is a badge of honor. People fear what they don't understand and try to deny change. Your theories are admirable, but are not feasible or practical given the Republican blockade of truth.

Please. Your only half as smart as you think. You are not one of the enlightened ones with superior ideas--"if only people like you had a chance to run things we'd all see how great things would be"....

We've supposedly got a bunch of buggar eatin' smart guys running the show now and look how great things are... Most of the people in the current administration have academic or law degrees and have never met a payroll in their life. They scorn business and belittle people who seek to make profit. They think we aren't smart enough to make our own choices or spend our own money.

I'll take my freedom any day over your enlightened policies crippling taxation and controlling regulations. I'll spend my own money better than you will. I'll use it more wisely than you will. And if you take it you do so at the point of a gun--gee aren't you compassionate? If I take that away from you you no longer have any power or control over other people and that's really what you want. Like I said--I'll make my own choices and breath clean free air thank you very much.


That's what you really fear. We know who you are and what you believe. Trust me.

Big Bird
10-21-2012, 06:41
No it's not. Where do you get your definition for fascism?

Facists are more forceful socialists.

engineer151515
10-21-2012, 06:46
Actually, the individual mandate was a Republican or "conservative" idea before it was a Progressive one.

Besides, lots of scum sucking Progressives in the Republican ranks. Lots of fascists too.


That is true (I forgot).

Of course, the Supreme Court identified the hypocrisy of the misnomer "mandate" and labeled it a "tax" for it to hold Constitutional muster.

muscogee
10-21-2012, 06:56
Facists are more forceful socialists.

Not even close.

Big Bird
10-21-2012, 07:09
Not even close.


Wanna bet? Hitler, Mussolini and Franco were all National SOCIALISTS... They weren't National Capitalists.

Read Von Hayak's The road to Serfdom.

Green_Manelishi
10-21-2012, 07:14
Interesting. What do yo mean by insurance agencies?

A simple definition would be an entity to which you pay a monthly fee which will then payout in the event of an unexpected, not preexisting, financially catastrophic event or illness.

Too bad only lawyers can understand the legal-mumbo-jumbo-wamba-jamba-gonna-deny-your-claim-if-we-canba-fine-print-man/mba built into the fine print of many insurance policies.

aspartz
10-21-2012, 07:31
This just in: life not fair.

Story at 11.

Follow up on tomorrow's news, it is not the role of government to make life fair.

ARS

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine