Universal Health care: What does it mean for us a citizens?
-
24valvenotak;303927 wrote:
really?Well, I don't know what your situation is, but there's no other place in the world I'd rather get healthcare.
Today, most of my health concerns are around having kids.
Premature babies have a higher survival and zero-defect rate now than ever before, and it gets better and better every year. Not even 100 years ago people used to have as many kids as possible with the hope that a few would survive.
I know several people that have had super-premie babies that 25-30 years ago simply wouldn't have survived anywhere in the world. Now they do, even in a town the size of Fargo. That's real innovation and progress from the best system in the world, and that's what Obama is fucking with.
There's a reason canadian politicians come to the US to get treated.
-
Eurofan;303914 wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/18/fox-news-poll-oppose-health-care-reform/
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126521/favor-oppose-obama-healthcare-plan.aspxThose two links completely negate anything actually valid you said.
Every Republican I've talked to about this has essentially covered their ears and yelled "LALALAGOVERNMENTTAKEOVERGOVERNMENTTAKEOVERCANTHEARYOU."
Dave, the creation of the health care exchange has always been one of the main purposes of the bill. If you haven't heard about that, I can't really see how you can know much about the bill at all.
Here are some cliff notes on the main points of the bill. The entire bill is online if anyone actually cares to read it.
Cost:
* $940 billion over ten years.Deficit:
*Would reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the first ten years. That is an updated CBO estimate. Their first preliminary estimate said it would reduce the deficit by $130 billion over ten years. Would reduce the deficit by $1.2 billion dollars in the second ten years.Coverage:
* Would expand coverage to 32 million Americans who are currently uninsured.Health Insurance Exchanges:
* The uninsured and self-employed would be able to purchase insurance through state-based exchanges with subsidies available to individuals and families with income between the 133 percent and 400 percent of poverty level. * Separate exchanges would be created for small businesses to purchase coverage -- effective 2014. * Funding available to states to establish exchanges within one year of enactment and until January 1, 2015.Subsidies:
* Individuals and families who make between 100 percent - 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) and want to purchase their own health insurance on an exchange are eligible for subsidies. They cannot be eligible for Medicare, Medicaid and cannot be covered by an employer. Eligible buyers receive premium credits and there is a cap for how much they have to contribute to their premiums on a sliding scale.Federal Poverty Level for family of four is $22,050
Paying for the Plan:
* Medicare Payroll tax on investment income -- Starting in 2012, the Medicare Payroll Tax will be expanded to include unearned income. That will be a 3.8 percent tax on investment income for families making more than $250,000 per year ($200,000 for individuals). * Excise Tax -- Beginning in 2018, insurance companies will pay a 40 percent excise tax on so-called "Cadillac" high-end insurance plans worth over $27,500 for families ($10,200 for individuals). Dental and vision plans are exempt and will not be counted in the total cost of a family's plan. * Tanning Tax -- 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services.Medicare:
* Closes the Medicare prescription drug "donut hole" by 2020. Seniors who hit the donut hole by 2010 will receive a $250 rebate. * Beginning in 2011, seniors in the gap will receive a 50 percent discount on brand name drugs. The bill also includes $500 billion in Medicare cuts over the next decade.Medicaid:
* Expands Medicaid to include 133 percent of federal poverty level which is $29,327 for a family of four. * Requires states to expand Medicaid to include childless adults starting in 2014. * Federal Government pays 100 percent of costs for covering newly eligible individuals through 2016. * Illegal immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid.Insurance Reforms:
* Six months after enactment, insurance companies could no longer denying children coverage based on a preexisting condition. * Starting in 2014, insurance companies cannot deny coverage to anyone with preexisting conditions. * Insurance companies must allow children to stay on their parent's insurance plans through age 26.Abortion:
* The bill segregates private insurance premium funds from taxpayer funds. Individuals would have to pay for abortion coverage by making two separate payments, private funds would have to be kept in a separate account from federal and taxpayer funds. * No health care plan would be required to offer abortion coverage. States could pass legislation choosing to opt out of offering abortion coverage through the exchange.**Separately, anti-abortion Democrats worked out language with the White House on an executive order that would state that no federal funds can be used to pay for abortions except in the case of rape, incest or health of the mother. (Read more here)
Individual Mandate:
* In 2014, everyone must purchase health insurance or face a $695 annual fine. There are some exceptions for low-income people.Employer Mandate:
* Technically, there is no employer mandate. Employers with more than 50 employees must provide health insurance or pay a fine of $2000 per worker each year if any worker receives federal subsidies to purchase health insurance. Fines applied to entire number of employees minus some allowances.Immigration:
* Illegal immigrants will not be allowed to buy health insurance in the exchanges -- even if they pay completely with their own money. -
integra_gsr98;303899 wrote:
Jim:The problem is that we have the greatest health care system in the world, period. Yes it has it's issues but those could have been remedied without a government takeover, and really without a whole pile of money as well.
What needs to be done:
- Tort Reform
Doctors should not be responsible for carrying the level of insurance that is required today. I fully agree that a surgeon who leaves a scissors in someone who dies as a result of the surgery should be responsible for their actions. However, I do not believe that this person should be able to be sued for an unlimited amount of money. Furthermore a general practicing doctor should not be able to be sued for a 'misdiagnoses.' This is why there are second and third opinions available. This simple fix would also cause the numbers of unneeded medical tests to drop dramatically, which in turn would lower insurance premiums, because doctors wouldn't have to worry about having all of their bases covered in the event of a potential problem.
From what I've read atleast, it seems that the vast majority of the professionals working in the health care system support this bill. I do agree that the lawsuits racking up millions should be prevented, and that there should be a system set in place to prevent this (but again this involves more government intervention right?). Anyway, although there maybe cost calcuated in for malpractice lawsuits, i'd assume the overall amount is fairly low in comparison to the overall cost of healthcare (not just insurance)
- Purchasing of health insurance across state lines
This is still not covered in Obamacare. These 'exchanges' from my understanding are still state based and not national. If you or I were able to purchase coverage from a national Blue Cross Blue Shield vs. BCBS of ND rates would be dramatically lower.
I think this is right, the exchanges are state based. Wasn't this mostly the doing though of the GOP? I think they wanted states to have control vs. fed?
- Minor adjustments to existing insurance coverage
People need to understand the value of health care. If you go to the doctor for every cough, every ache, every pain, simply because you have insurance and pay a $25 co-pay you'll never realize what the cost of that visit really is. If you've ever gone to the doctor and paid cash you'll realize there is a quite a discount for doing so. By saving the hospital the overhead of doing the paperwork they are able to pass those savings on to you. Crazy how that works!
Maybe a focus on prevetative healthcare rather then bogus heathcare shoudl have been included as a better option? But yeah I'd tend to agree the overuse and perhaps even abuse contributes to healthcare costs, but any shape or form of reform woudln't address this really?
Now for preexisting conditions; insurers are evaluators of risk. Your payment is hedged against the idea that they will pay out less over the course of you being a customer than you have paid in. This is how they make a profit and why they are in business.
If you are uninsured for extended periods of times (not talking when switching jobs) and are diagnosed with cancer you should be denied health insurance. It is insurance policy, not a 'pay for everything' policy. How is a company supposed to stay in business if all of it's customers are able to only sign up when necessary to have them pay hundreds of thousands of dollars medical bills, for only hundreds of dollars a month?
If you look at this like car insurance, you don't put full coverage on an already totaled vehicle and expect them to fix it, do you?
I do agree that something should happen with preexisting conditions when someone who is working changes jobs. How to fix this other than saying "Use COBRA dummy" I do not know. Maybe requiring employers to provide coverage to employees on day 1 of employment vs day 90 would solve this. There are plenty of people who have been affected due to a lapse in coverage caused by a job change that should not have been. The key is to find a balance between regulation and common sense to make sure that all parties have a system that works well and provides the necessary coverage.
I think perhaps this has more to do with the perceived moral obligation that the country has to not let people die in the modern world, and that, obviously is a matter of opinion
integra_gsr98;303900 wrote:
One last thing...NO hospital is going to turn a patient away who cannot pay for their services. If you walk into a hospital ER with a broken leg and up front tell them that you have no way to pay for the service, they are not going to turn you away.
However, I do see the future of private hospitals refusing to accept various forms of insurance based on the amount it will cost them to do so. I fear that this will be cause for the dems to seek more control and lead to a total nationalization of the health care system and a single payer system. It really is pretty scary.
I hear about this all the time, isn't the dependence of uninsured on ER rooms a large problem that increases the health costs for the rest of us?
I doubt that hospitals are going to turn away people in the future due to this bill, its sort of a separate issue.
-
thrash;303930 wrote:
Well, I don't know what your situation is, but there's no other place in the world I'd rather get healthcare.Today, most of my health concerns are around having kids.
Premature babies have a higher survival and zero-defect rate now than ever before, and it gets better and better every year. Not even 100 years ago people used to have as many kids as possible with the hope that a few would survive.
I know several people that have had super-premie babies that 25-30 years ago simply wouldn't have survived anywhere in the world. Now they do, even in a town the size of Fargo. That's real innovation and progress from the best system in the world, and that's what Obama is fucking with.
There's a reason canadian politicians come to the US to get treated.
We have the best DOCTORS, yes. The health care system includes other things like how things get paid for. That's the ridiculously broken part.
-
torbs;303903 wrote:
If around $940B is the down payment, what is the final price going to be, and what is the end goal?This is my fear...
Torbs, what's the cost of doing nothing to the system in place now though, and then passing the cost of the uninsured on to the government itself... and also what's the societal cost for letting those insured become sick and not contribute?
Obviously, I don't know what the actual numbers are, but its i tend agree that it is a risk, but one that could perhaps be justified if it plays out right.
ruthless351;303909 wrote:
I don't like how its going to be mandatory to have insurance by 2014 or pay a fine. My current job has such a shitty deal on insurance that i will be working just for coverage. A second job to pay the rest of the household bills. Correct me if i'm wrong please.I was reading the opinons in the paper last week a lady used food stamps to buy cigarettes got cash back and then bought a few lottery tickets. THATS where the tax payer money is going. Helping the lazy float through life on our dime. Anyone else read that section?
If you don't make enough money, you'll be issued a subsidy to offset the cost of this fine.
Also, you can't use food stamps and that shit for smokes and beer... but the welfare / unemployement system is an entirely different beast then health care reform.
StangerBanger96;303913 wrote:
What it means:Democrats are going to lose hardcore in midterm elections, and Obama is out after his first term. Republicans will repeal/legislate away most of the crap from this bill. (Hopefully)
There are also several lawyer groups and state Attorney Generals that have been waiting for it to pass so they can bring the Federal Gov. to court over the legality of the bill anyways. The Fed uses the commerce clause to prove the legality of the bill because nowhere in the Constitution does it allow the Feds to FORCE you to buy a service. They use the commerce clause to work their way around the lack of that wording, yet, health insurance cannot be bought across state lines...not very interstate.
I think the democrats know that this isn't an issue that really is going to determine future elections, its too closely divided for whatever reason. I'm 100% sure the GOP will use this as a campaigning issue, but I tend to think that what the Dems do in relation to the economy will be the determining factor.
Everything I've seen is that dems really want to move past this and focus on legistation relating to the economy as quickly as possible, specificly for the reasons you listed above.
-
Trafik Jamz;303917 wrote:
I'm not a fan of the healthcare reform that passed, however I don't think it is the doom/gloom that the Republicans are making it out to be either.Basically, by 2014 your employer will have to provide you with a healthcare plan or pay a penalty. I THINK there are provisions on basic coverage that must be included in the insurance they must offer. If they don't, you would be required to purchase your own insurance off of one of the exchanges/private market. If your income is such that you cannot afford a policy, there will be subsidies to help you along.
As for the lady buying cigs w/ her food stamps, I'm not sure how that is possible UNLESS the grocery store/convenience store keyed the cigarettes as food, and even then w/ the EBT system, there shouldn't be any money coming back to her to buy lotto tix. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but if it did, there was a flaw on the part of the store and the individual, the system, though imperfect, has taken numerous measures to ensure that this doesn't happen so long as the retailers are honest.
I'd tend to agree with this, but I guess time will tell how it all works out.
Eurofan;303914 wrote:
940B is the amount of spending over 10 years, not just a down payment.You cant hold that 940 accurate... There is no way of really predicting how much this is going to cost.
I personally think congress is being naive about the cost of all of this....
Its just scary. Too much government....
Again, you have to attempt to calculate what the cost of health care would be for the 30+ million that is uninsured / underinsured.
Nothing in life has ever been free, since the dawn of time, health care shouldnt be any different..
Socialists will feed us sob stories all day about the soul who was dropped coverage in the midst of a cancer battle or someone who cant afford it to start, but where do we draw the line? Its a harsh world, there are always going to be horrible things happening.. Do we let our government take car of us and lean on them for our issues as persons??? When we stop pity?
This really isn't a socialist idea though man. Find another 1st world country that doesn't have a social health net. The issue of social welfare goes far beyond that of healthcare, and perhaps that needs to be addressed too.
Government is in place to protect us and keep order... We should never look at the government for free hand outs.
I have always been less than opinionated about political affairs that take place on a day-to-day basis, but this bothers me. It will destroy a large amount of power that the people have in this industry. Frankly, its a gateway to a realm of government control... and that simply scares the shit out of me.
Edit: I have heard that the decision by congress has neglected to reflect the will of the people, reason more to fear this thing...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/18/fox-news-poll-oppose-health-care-reform/
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126521/favor-oppose-obama-healthcare-plan.aspxWhy do we as citizens have the say in something so radical. Granted, they are elected officials.. but whats keeping them from listening?
Foxnews :rolleyes:
-
How isnt it a socialist idea..???
The bill will rob the people who are fortunate enough to have the means to pay their own insurance and giving it to the less fortunate.
^Sure, not directly.. but you can be sure that the government doesn't have the means/wont pay for this entirely... Its going to come out of the pocket of all tax payers.
Its redistribution of wealth- A socialist ideal.
Haha, yeah... the second link was provided just for those who hate fox news. They are certainly biased, but non biased sources have cited that the majority of the nation is not in favor...
-
well i found some people who arent in favor
http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=370668318969&ref=nf
-
This really isn't a socialist idea though man. Find another 1st world country that doesn't have a social health net. The issue of social welfare goes far beyond that of healthcare, and perhaps that needs to be addressed too.
Jim, socialism is a "Degree" thing. To some extent, every place puts the desires of some parts of society ahead of the rights of individuals. The US was designed to expressly NOT do this, and was the first place that ever had a revolution that enshrined the intrinsic right of the individual as the supreme principle of reality. We've spent the following 200+ years going away from that and towards socialism: where what your neighbor wants is his for the taking.
There is no other country like the US anywhere. We are downgrading and becoming like other places.
Of course the rest of the world does it some other way: the entire rest of the world is wrong. The US constitution and the ideology that went into building it is the most moral and ethical system of governance possible: individual freedom for the individual's sake. No other country or system of government anywhere has this, all others are inferior.
We should stop trying to act like the rest of the world: this country was founded because the rest of the world sucked.
-
thrash;303950 wrote:
Jim, socialism is a "Degree" thing. To some extent, every place puts the desires of some parts of society ahead of the rights of individuals. The US was designed to expressly NOT do this, and was the first place that ever had a revolution that enshrined the intrinsic right of the individual as the supreme principle of reality. We've spent the following 200+ years going away from that and towards socialism: where what your neighbor wants is his for the taking.There is no other country like the US anywhere. We are downgrading and becoming like other places.
Of course the rest of the world does it some other way: the entire rest of the world is wrong. The US constitution and the ideology that went into building it is the most moral and ethical system of governance possible: individual freedom for the individual's sake. No other country or system of government anywhere has this, all others are inferior.
We should stop trying to act like the rest of the world: this country was founded because the rest of the world sucked.
+1
What ever happened to that?
-
I never claimed to know anything about bill. It was completed and posted online on Thursday, I doubt you or anyone else has actually read it.
All we can do is listen to the analysis from each side and try to determine what the truth is. Even when I hear the analysis from those promoting the bill, I don't like what I'm hearing.
amicheze;303931 wrote:
Dave, the creation of the health care exchange has always been one of the main purposes of the bill. If you haven't heard about that, I can't really see how you can know much about the bill at all.DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
DaveH;303953 wrote:
I never claimed to know anything about bill. It was completed and posted online on Thursday, I doubt you or anyone else has actually read it.All we can do is listen to the analysis from each side and try to determine what the truth is. Even when I hear the analysis from those promoting the bill, I don't like what I'm hearing.
/Thread.
-
thrash;303950 wrote:
Jim, socialism is a "Degree" thing. To some extent, every place puts the desires of some parts of society ahead of the rights of individuals. The US was designed to expressly NOT do this, and was the first place that ever had a revolution that enshrined the intrinsic right of the individual as the supreme principle of reality. We've spent the following 200+ years going away from that and towards socialism: where what your neighbor wants is his for the taking.There is no other country like the US anywhere. We are downgrading and becoming like other places.
Of course the rest of the world does it some other way: the entire rest of the world is wrong. The US constitution and the ideology that went into building it is the most moral and ethical system of governance possible: individual freedom for the individual's sake. No other country or system of government anywhere has this, all others are inferior.
We should stop trying to act like the rest of the world: this country was founded because the rest of the world sucked.
This and now we are trying to become like the rest of the world. Why dont all the dems move to Europe or something and leave our country alone.
-
Eurofan;303942 wrote:
How isnt it a socialist idea..???The bill will rob the people who are fortunate enough to have the means to pay their own insurance and giving it to the less fortunate.
^Sure, not directly.. but you can be sure that the government doesn't have the means/wont pay for this entirely... Its going to come out of the pocket of all tax payers.
Its redistribution of wealth- A socialist ideal.
Haha, yeah... the second link was provided just for those who hate fox news. They are certainly biased, but non biased sources have cited that the majority of the nation is not in favor...
To address this one issue, I think you need to look into what is/isn't in the bill.
There is no "Public Option" from what I can tell, so no one is buying insurance from the government. Nor is it a "medicare-for-all" program.
The closest you can get to calling it that is when you look at subsidies to help people purchase insurance. The theory behind it is that if EVERYONE has health insurance, one of two things will happen:
[LIST=1]
[]Healthier people in the risk pool will make health insurance less of a risk and lower costs for everyone.
[]Everyone will get the medical attention they need w/o fear of being dropped from coverage because they are too sick. In theory if everyone is covered, diseases will be diagnosed at earlier, more treatable stages rather than later and more costly. I forget the exact numbers, but right now >60% of all bankruptcies happen due to medical costs, of them >80% actually have major medical insurance. This bill is aimed at helping prevent this. If bankruptcies were to drop ~50%, in theory that would mean that there would be less businesses/lending institutions having to "eat" that money, making banking and the economy more stable. Which is good for all involved.
[/LIST]
I'll agree that there is a bit of wealth distribution going on in the form of taxation of "Cadillac" policies (which incidentally many union members have....and they typically are far left). The other place it happens is on those making >$200,000 (single) or >$250,000 (family). THIS is the area where my biggest concern lies within this plan.It doesn't limit which insurance policies you can buy, it doesn't limit which doctors you can go to. Which is a good thing.
I'm not sure the "majority of americans" aren't in favor, I'd say the majority don't have any idea what is even being proposed.
-
DelSlow;303954 wrote:
/Thread.cue the kickass fox news breakdown with wicked awesome music and a graphic that would make jimmy carter's head explode.
-
24valvenotak;303962 wrote:
cue the kickass fox news breakdown with wicked awesome music and a graphic that would make jimmy carter's head explode.Carters head is so full of air already, it wouldn't take much to make that peanut-head's head explode. (pun intended)
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Basically what it boils down to is that everything the government sticks its greedy and inefficient fingers into becomes corrupt, inefficient, and bankrupt.
Medicare - Dieing
SS - Dieing
Medicaid - Dieing
Healthcare - Soon to FollowCan anyone think of something that the government has gotten involved in that has operated better since government involvement?
BUT, everything that the government does not regulate to death actually improves over time and costs drop as well. Interesting isn't it? Plastic surgeries are usually the example that are used...insurance doesn't cover them so people have to pay out of pocket for their cosmetic surgeries. What have cosmetic surgery prices done? DROPPED. Government doesn't regulate products like TV's and such, and how much did LCD's cost 10 years ago? I think I remember seeing them at best buy for ~8-$10,000! Now you can buy a BETTER tv for $500-$1000. Things they don't get involved in get better and cheaper. Things they get involved in get costly, bloated, inefficient, and expensive.
Anyone seen what is happening with Greece?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login