Obamacare is passed.....let the outrage

[z31maniac]

And 3% of taxpayers in this country control 45% of the wealth. What's your point? Do you think that an extra few hundred in taxes for people that make $150,000 + per year is going to break the bank? How's this for statistics? There are 50,000 people in this country who are worth between $50 million and $250 million. There are 35-45 million people in this country who don't have health insurance. Many of the people who are uninsured are children. Many others are hard-working people who used to have health insurance, but are now unemployed due to the recession. With respect to children, you can't really expect a child to pay for his own health insurance, can you? When it comes to recently unemployed people, they often have to make a choice between feeding their family or buying health insurance. Is that really a choice that a hard-working American should have to make? Public health care is NOT redistribution of wealth, it is a way of making sure that all Americans have the same access to good medical care. Not to mention, what if the government cut military spending and redirected those funds to support public health care? In other words, what if the government subsidized the public option without raising taxes? Would you still be complaining? Would you try to argue that having troops stationed in places like Germany and Japan is more important than providing healthcare to children? If off-brand countries like Switzerland and Canada can provide public health care, we should be able to as well.

Yes, we are already subsidizing the private market. And more than we should, because the people who are uninsured can only use emergency room treatment, which is astronomically more expensive than regular doctor's visits.

It's for the children, do it for the children.

There are already programs in place to take care of children whose parents don't have health insurance, my three nephews receive their medical care that way.

How you do plan to support health care without raising taxes? The Fed's can't even control their spending now. And we know for a FACT that their cost estimates will be off. When Medicare/Medicaid started they predicted the costs to the Federal Gov't in 1990 as a way to show what is was going to cost, they were off approximately 10 fold.

Canada and the Swiss have to provide health care to people living there. :p


Basically it boils down to this. For some reason you think the gov't, even though it has a proven history of failure for being efficient, maintaining costs or generally making good decisions will do better than the free market.

Open up the rules to make insurance rates more competitive (ever see how much more health insurance is for young males in NY vs KY? I believe New York states is around 6x more expensive), make prescription drugs affordable (all the same drugs [same brands even] for less north and south of our borders), put a cap on malpratice lawsuits. That would be a good start.


I'm not saying our system couldn't be better, there are many things that we could/should change, but the Fed's want control—not a level playing field.

I am saying there is no way in hell that letting the Federal Gov't handle it is going to make it any better.

[ck_taft325is]

On the note of Children having health care, not only are there programs already in place for this, but a majority of them are not Govt. funded programs. They are privately funded organizations that take extremely good care of kids.

[pbr87]

It's for the children, do it for the children.

There are already programs in place to take care of children whose parents don't have health insurance, my three nephews receive their medical care that way.

You really think those "programs" are satisfactory.

How you do plan to support health care without raising taxes? The Fed's can't even control their spending now. And we know for a FACT that their cost estimates will be off. When Medicare/Medicaid started they predicted the costs to the Federal Gov't in 1990 as a way to show what is was going to cost, they were off approximately 10 fold.

Simple. Cut military spending and redirect the funds.

Canada and the Swiss have to provide health care to people living there. :p

Have to?

Basically it boils down to this. For some reason you think the gov't, even though it has a proven history of failure for being efficient, maintaining costs or generally making good decisions will do better than the free market.

In this case, yes.

Open up the rules to make insurance rates more competitive (ever see how much more health insurance is for young males in NY vs KY? I believe New York states is around 6x more expensive), make prescription drugs affordable (all the same drugs [same brands even] for less north and south of our borders), put a cap on malpratice lawsuits. That would be a good start.

Try to lower the cost of health insurance in one state, and it will go up in another. Health insurance companies don't exactly play fair. They claim things like "pre-existing condition" for people who develop cancer. In my opinion, several of them should be put out of business. Try to make prescription drugs more affordable without government subsidy? How? If you mean by placing price cap regulations on pharmaceutical companies, that is a terrible idea. Do this, and you take away from their R&D budgets, which is the bread and butter to their product development.

I'm not saying our system couldn't be better, there are many things that we could/should change, but the Fed's want control—not a level playing field.

I am saying there is no way in hell that letting the Federal Gov't handle it is going to make it any better.

But when the "control" that they're talking about involves giving everyone access to quality healthcare, is it really a bad type of control? Not to mention, everyone that can afford private healthcare now, will still be able to and have the option to do so in the future. So, explain to me how the government is really taking "full control"?

[pbr87]

I'd urge nearly everyone that's posted or just browsed this thread to look up some of Reagan's radio addresses concerning Socialism in the United States pre-election. He makes some points that we haven't covered.

Reagan wasn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer.

And to classify anyone that's against this bill as "upper middle class that don't want to pay their taxes" is the most fucking inflamatory statement I've heard yet. Who the fuck do you think you are?

Apparently, I'm the person stirring the pot / putting your panties in a twist.

You must make more than $75,000 a year and LOVE having your earned money taken away at an alarming rate?

Not yet, but I will be in about a year and a half :up:

Here then, I'll be a good "lower" class person that needs a hand out and you can send me 40% of all your earnings for the next year to 98360. PM for the exact addy or you can use Paypal (ck_taft@hotmail.com). I'm even trying to support a new family while my THREE fields of experience are "in decline".

I'm not talking about giving money to people. I'm talking about paying for healthcare. There's a huge difference. If you read some of my older posts, I am against welfare. I believe that sending checks to people who have already proven that they do not know how to budget money is fundamentally wrong. But paying for healthcare to less fortunate people is not the same as "sending them 40% of your earnings". Turn off Fox News, learn that there is a difference, then get back to me. Not to mention, as I said previously, the public option can be funded WITHOUT raising taxes. It would just involve scaling back the military budget and redirecting those funds.

Live your conviction before you open the far end of your ass.

To the MD in training. I agree, for us to think substandard pay will produce substandard medical care is offensive but by the same token, nearly true. If you don't believe so, and heaven knows I hope every doctor is just like you, wait until they tell you where you can live. Who you can treat due to costs on the state. When you can work and exactly how you can work. The further reaching consequences of this bill is the unsettling part. The money has been the primary focus but there's a world of bad opened up that people just haven't thought of or simply don't want too.

:bs: healthcare is not going to be fully government controlled. Anyone who can afford private healthcare now, will still be allowed to pay for their own healthcare in the future. They will have that option. So how much further are you going to try and play the "control" card?

[z31maniac]

But when the "control" that they're talking about involves giving everyone access to quality healthcare, is it really a bad type of control? Not to mention, everyone that can afford private healthcare now, will still be able to and have the option to do so in the future. So, explain to me how the government is really taking "full control"?

So doubling the cost of care for young workers and bringing down the overall quality of care is OK? I don't get how you don't think the gov't isn't controlling it. They will set coverages/costs/etc, but they aren't controlling it. You're either an excellent troll or special.

I pay $1100 out of pocket every year for health/dental/visions/short and long term disability and a life insurance plan worth twice my salary.

The last cost estimate I saw for a single payer system, based on my salary would QUINTUPLE my cost of coverage. Yes $5000 per year for single adults who make more then $44k a year. My girlfriend and I would spend more on health care per year then we do on our house payment.

[pbr87]

So doubling the cost of care for young workers and bringing down the overall quality of care is OK? I don't get how you don't think the gov't isn't controlling it. They will set coverages/costs/etc, but they aren't controlling it. You're either an excellent troll or special.

I don't quite understand how it's "doubling the cost", when the average young worker won't be paying anything extra in taxes as a result. And they are not controlling it, because YOU WILL STILL HAVE THE OPTION TO GET PRIVATE CARE!! The word "control" implies that you don't have any other choice than that one specific point of action. You need to choose your words carefully.

I pay $1100 out of pocket every year for health/dental/visions/short and long term disability and a life insurance plan worth twice my salary.

The last cost estimate I saw for a single payer system, based on my salary would QUINTUPLE my cost of coverage. Yes $5000 per year for single adults who make more then $44k a year. My girlfriend and I would spend more on health care per year then we do on our house payment.

Again, I don't quite understand how your insurance will quintuple. As someone (I think it was you) stated earlier, we are already paying for people who can't pay for health insurance. We do so by paying higher fees so that their unpaid emergency room visits become neutralized. Also, don't forget that 30% of money that gets spent on private healthcare goes into the pockets of people who work for insurance companies, such as: lawyers, actuaries, salesmen, etc. This overhead is an example of an unnecessary sunken cost. It is money being wasted, pure and simple. In fact, these people who work for companies like Aetna or Anthem Blue Cross are the very people who are instigating the majority of propaganda against the public option.

[ck_taft325is]

Then you can pay my healthcare. Simple as that. Oh wait, it's the Govt. job, right... silly me. As stated before, live your convictions. If YOU feel that paying for a persons, or a families healthcare who is less fortunate than you, by all means! You have my vote. Again, you can send Paypal monthly too ck_taft@hotmail.com. To require a mass moral guidance is the same as a "bible thumping super religious nut job" telling people they're sinners and are going to hell unless they repent. And who exactly is the less fortunate? How do you draw that distinction or line for who is and who is not? More Government programs and spending to create offices and jobs for people too watch, analyze and decide the fate of those who either are or are not deserving enough (less "fortunate" enough) to have their medical bills paid? Isn't that the same thing everyone's all riled up about that health care providers/insurances do? The only difference is people have a choice. A CHOICE. To mandate that I or any other American has to live a certain way under penalty of imprisonment, fines or persecution is, I'll say it, Un-American. That includes telling an MD where he can live, who, what, when, why or how he treats his patients.

So you'd want to cut military spending? What a fucking pipe dream. You say, "move troops stationed in Germany and Japan out of there!" too pay for Healthcare. A. You have no idea what the actual situation or reason these men and women are stationed there is, B. That wouldn't provide 1/10th the money needed for this Healthcare Plan. And you want to cut the spending that goes into protecting their lives while they serve? Better equipment, gear, tools, weapons. C'mon man, you criticize Reagan for being "no the sharpets knife" and then say this?

Turn off CNN, MSNBC and any other news. I watched all three until they become ridiculous loads of crap (all of them) about bashing the other side of the fence. To have any perspective you need both sides anyways, so to claim Fox News is the Devil is ridiculous.

Stir away, man! I'm all for debate. The sad fact is, you look down on my view points while I don't mind yours. You've yet to point any flaw out in z31's arguement and state only that it's a good thing. No, not good thing, the "moral" thing. The "right" thing.

[z31maniac]

Again, I don't quite understand how your insurance will quintuple. As someone (I think it was you) stated earlier, we are already paying for people who can't pay for health insurance. We do so by paying higher fees so that their unpaid emergency room visits become neutralized. Also, don't forget that 30% of money that gets spent on private healthcare goes into the pockets of people who work for insurance companies, such as: lawyers, actuaries, salesmen, etc. This overhead is an example of an unnecessary sunken cost. It is money being wasted, pure and simple. In fact, these people who work for companies like Aetna or Anthem Blue Cross are the very people who are instigating the majority of propaganda against the public option.

You obviously didn't read the story I posted, so I'll move on.

You think the gov't is going to eliminate overhead and cost overruns?

You realize I work for a defense contractor and see the idiocy that is the gov't on a daily basis correct?

I promise you won't be changing my mind on this, and I won't be changing yours, so I will now respectfully bow out of this thread.

[pbr87]

You obviously didn't read the story I posted, so I'll move on.

I didn't. I accidentally overlooked it....I am reading it right now.

You think the gov't is going to eliminate overhead and cost overruns?

You realize I work for a defense contractor and see the idiocy that is the gov't on a daily basis correct?

I promise you won't be changing my mind on this, and I won't be changing yours, so I will now respectfully bow out of this thread.

I don't think they'll eliminate all of the overheads. But some of them, yes.

[rwh11385]

I don't quite understand how it's "doubling the cost", when the average young worker won't be paying anything extra in taxes as a result. And they are not controlling it, because YOU WILL STILL HAVE THE OPTION TO GET PRIVATE CARE!! The word "control" implies that you don't have any other choice than that one specific point of action. You need to choose your words carefully.

Again, I don't quite understand how your insurance will quintuple. As someone (I think it was you) stated earlier, we are already paying for people who can't pay for health insurance. We do so by paying higher fees so that their unpaid emergency room visits become neutralized. Also, don't forget that 30% of money that gets spent on private healthcare goes into the pockets of people who work for insurance companies, such as: lawyers, actuaries, salesmen, etc. This overhead is an example of an unnecessary sunken cost. It is money being wasted, pure and simple. In fact, these people who work for companies like Aetna or Anthem Blue Cross are the very people who are instigating the majority of propaganda against the public option.

Taxes on average citizen won't matter... health insurance companies will have to adjust their prices to deal with this new bill and Obama will make health care more expensive for those who can now afford it. Democrats and socialists get more power when there are more people who need their help and have much less control when people are strong on their own.

I'm fine with actuaries getting paid. My mom is one. I'm okay with lawyers getting paid, my sister is going to be one. YOU THINK THE GOVERNMENT WILL HAVE LESS OVERHEAD?!?!? You're a fool! Health care companies need people to work for them, and I don't think that 30% is accurate, but oh well. There are lots of jobs to ensure HC insurance is smooth as it can, and GOV will do it less smooth and more expensive to manage...

Health Care is Not a Right
The United States Bill of Rights grants rights to its citizens. Those rights prescribe freedoms for self-determination. For example:

What Rights Give:
- The right to choose to speak.
- The right to to choose to assemble with others.
- The right to choose to bear arms.

What Rights Don't Give:
- The right to force other people to listen to you.
- The right to force other people to hang out with you.
- The right to force other people to run a gun store to provide you weapons.

I'm making a point about the distinction of rights.
A right gives you the freedom to choose something, but it doesn't force other people to do things for you.
I can't perform a coronary bypass on myself, so I need other people to do so. Is it a right to force doctors to do that on me?

No.
Health Care is a privilege, not a right.

- ConsultantNinja

US Health Care Costs
Georgetown professor Ken Homa has a good analysis of the health care industry cost structure, and takes issue with Obama's recent targeting of HMO profits. Homa's analysis is correct but could be easier to understand with a simple graphic, which I've done here.



Conclusion: Killing HMOs isn't going to save our health care system.- ConsultantNinja

[Aptyp]

Open up the rules to make insurance rates more competitive (ever see how much more health insurance is for young males in NY vs KY? I believe New York states is around 6x more expensive), make prescription drugs affordable (all the same drugs [same brands even] for less north and south of our borders), put a cap on malpratice lawsuits. That would be a good start.

The sad part of it all, that what you're saying makes sense and will not happen. Obama's promise to his campaign contributors was just that.


I think US does need a health-care plan. There has to be a base text we can all agree on, like constitution, and with time "we the people" would add all necessary amendments to healthcare and make it work. Opening borders and embrassing free market is the way to go, because we have an abundant supply and demand for healthy living globally. I have a big problem with it being 1,000 pages long and full of redundancies. You can't have a bill that is longer than most medical publications and costs more than any bill in history of US. I don't know how many doctors we have in congress, but if every lobby allied with the bill once they heard $1.5 trillion, then something must be fundamentally wrong.

We all want everyone to be healthy, but there's no way I'd want to be penalized if somehow I begin to make more than $100,000 a year. I worked my ass off through college while having a job and paying all my bills. It took me 6.5 years to get my diploma and have $0 debt. I am not greedy, I earned it.

I am a strong believer that people, who are well off, can make their own decision on whether to be charitable without government involvement. People like all those liberal yuppy hollywoods, should take under their wings underprivileged neighborhoods in Los Angeles minutes away from their homes. Maybe people like Jon Stewart can pick a few families out of New Jersey and New York? Not me, guys. No one paid for my father's heart attack, but his insurance company that he dunked money in for 10 years and is now as loyal as ever.

[rwh11385]

You really think those "programs" are satisfactory.

If you don't think those programs are satisfactory, why do you think the result of this bill would be any better?

[rwh11385]

I'm not talking about giving money to people. I'm talking about paying for healthcare. There's a huge difference. If you read some of my older posts, I am against welfare. I believe that sending checks to people who have already proven that they do not know how to budget money is fundamentally wrong. But paying for healthcare to less fortunate people is not the same as "sending them 40% of your earnings". Turn off Fox News, learn that there is a difference, then get back to me. Not to mention, as I said previously, the public option can be funded WITHOUT raising taxes. It would just involve scaling back the military budget and redirecting those funds.

:bs: healthcare is not going to be fully government controlled. Anyone who can afford private healthcare now, will still be allowed to pay for their own healthcare in the future. They will have that option. So how much further are you going to try and play the "control" card?

Just like welfare, this is entitlement.

This will simply make it easier to get by in America if you fail at budgeting or life. Or are illegal. Like I mentioned, the government gets power from people who cannot take care of themselves, when they ought to only worry about military, police, and fire... etc.

People can afford private healthcare now... maybe not when it triples for them.

[pbr87]

Okay, I read the article. I have a couple of problems with it.
1) These cases that you mentioned, where costs could be rising by as much as 2xx%, could just be anomalies.
2) The study regarding this was performed by a health insurance company....again, if the source of information is coming from a leading promoter of anti-public-health propaganda, I have to wonder whether or not it was selectively filtered to suit a political agenda.

It also includes a couple of things that I agree with
1) I think that Obama has spent too much money trying to accomplish things in a short timespan. He wants to end the war in Iraq, fix the economy and publicize healthcare. I think that trying to accomplish all three at once is ridiculous and unrealistic. I think that he should have stuck with the choices of fixing the economy and Iraq, and let his healthcare plan take a backseat, but.....here we are in December, with Obamacare being passed.
2) Some of the information in this article reminded me of another article I read in WSJ a few months ago. An editorial by Newt gingrich, he said:

"The new bureaucracies that would be set up to reduce health-care spending by slashing payments to doctors, hospitals, surgeons, specialists, drug companies, high-tech equipment makers and others will kill the innovation that has served us so well. The essential incentives for the huge capital investment necessary to develop breakthrough treatments will be gone. And so too will high-paying jobs that these investments create" ("A Growth Vision for Health Reform. Why limit an innovative industry to a certain percent of GDP?" Newt Gingrich, The Wall Sreet Journal, 9/21/2009).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574425324084867640.html

I agreed with this statement then, and I agree with it still. The largest danger in publicizing healthcare is that it will decrease the competition that makes the field so advanced. However, I do not think that the public option will cause healthcare prices to spike for all Americans.

[rwh11385]

The sad part of it all, that what you're saying makes sense and will not happen. Obama's promise to his campaign contributors was just that.


I think US does need a health-care plan. Opening borders and embrassing free market is the way to go, because we have an abundant supply and demand for healthy living globally. I have a big problem with it being 1,000 pages long and full of redundancies. You can't have a bill that is longer than most medical publications and costs more than any bill in history of US.

Boom. Ideas to help health care reform without more government control:

http://www2.wholefoodsmarket.com/blogs/jmackey/2009/08/14/health-care-reform-full-article/

Health Care Reform
“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money”-Margaret Thatcher.

While we clearly need health care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and moves us much closer to a complete governmental takeover of our health care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the exact opposite direction-toward less governmental control and more individual empowerment. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:

1. Remove the legal obstacles which slow the creation of high deductible health insurance plans and Health Savings Accounts. The combination of high deductible health insurance and Health Savings Accounts is one solution that could solve many of our health care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high deductible health insurance plan, and provides up to $1,800 per year in additional health care dollars through deposits into their own Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness. Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about $2,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first $2,500 more carefully. Our plan’s costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of team member satisfaction.

2. Change the tax laws so that that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have exactly the same tax benefits. Right now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible for employers but private health insurance is not. This is unfair.

3. Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that health insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable everywhere.

4. Repeal all government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance many billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual health insurance customer preferences and not through special interest lobbying.

5. Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors into paying insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are ultimately being passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.

6. Make health care costs transparent so that consumers will understand what health care treatments cost. How many people know what their last doctor’s visit cost? What other goods or services do we as consumers buy without knowing how much they will cost us? We need a system where people can compare and contrast costs and services.

7. Enact Medicare reform: we need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and move towards greater patient empowerment and responsibility.

8. Permit individuals to make voluntary tax deductible donations on their IRS tax forms to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren’t covered by Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP or any other government program.

Many promoters of health care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care-to universal and equal access to doctors, medicines, and hospitals. While all of us can empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have any more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have an intrinsic right to food, clothing, owning their own homes, a car or a personal computer? Health care is a service which we all need at some point in our lives, but just like food, clothing, and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually-beneficial market exchanges rather than through government mandates. A careful reading of both The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter, because there isn’t any. This “right” has never existed in America.

Even in countries such as Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by governmental bureaucrats what health care treatments and medicines they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce and expensive treatments. Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million citizens. At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund on their behalf. Our Canadian and British team members express their benefit preferences very clearly-they want supplemental health care more than additional paid time off, larger donations to their retirement plans, or greater food discounts; they want health care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without permission from their governments. Why would they want such additional health care benefit dollars to spend if they already have an “intrinsic right to health care”? The answer is clear-no such right truly exists in either Canada or the U.K.-or in any other country.