article--Obamacare rhetoric vs reality

[AMDG]

Obamacare: Rhetoric vs. reality - Bowling Green Daily News: Commentary

People opposed to the health insurance aren't heartless. They just know that there are *huge* drawbacks.

This article explains the Obamacare regulation that exempts businesses from having to provide insurance to employees if they only employ less than 50 full time employees. Have your hours cut (like the restraurant chains of Red Lobster and Olive Garden) so you only are a part-time employee now? Or did you get a pink slip because you are employee #50? Or perhaps you'd like a permanent full-time job, but can't find one? Remember to thank Obama and his cohorts.

 

[LoAmmi]

It is a pretty stupid exemption. I would not have provided any businesses with such a thing if I had to run with the current system.

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

It is a pretty stupid exemption. I would not have provided any businesses with such a thing if I had to run with the current system.

Exactly. If we are going to insist that due to our fear of universal health care, insurance must be married to one's job, then why should any employer be exempt? If the employers don't want to provide it, then why not support a single payer system?

 

[AMDG]

Of course, paying out-of-pocket and getting the insurance companies out of health care completely might be a much better idea. I know that in my experience, insurance companies only work to increase costs. There are steep, steep discounts if the doctor doesn't have to fill out paperwork (and don't forget the right medical code), mail it in, be refused, fill out more paperwork (maybe having to use a different medical code) and mail that in ad nauseum.

There was a article about one person being charged $4000 for a MRI *if* it was under insurance, but only a couple hundred if it wasn't. I've found that most doctors prefer not dealing with insurance and I've noticed discounts over the years but this was the first time I read about.

 

[LoAmmi]

There was a article about one person being charged $4000 for a MRI *if* it was under insurance, but only a couple hundred if it wasn't. I've found that most doctors prefer not dealing with insurance and I've noticed discounts over the years but this was the first time I read about.

Chemotherapy can cost up to 30k per 8 weeks. How much of a discount do you really think someone could have without insurance?

Your plan dooms those with serious illness that are poor to death. I think you should rethink that. You keep thinking on small terms such as a person who broke an arm or whatever. What about the person with cancer or AIDS? Do you think there will be enough discounts not to drive them into bankruptcy and, eventually, to no treatment?

What is your plan for those people? Even with insurance, most people cannot get through such a problem without financial troubles, but they have a much better chance to get though them than someone without.

 

[FrozenOne]

After it gets fully implemented in 2014 you'll start calling it the Obamadoesn'tcare plan.

 

[AMDG]

Medical care paid for in cash - and cheaper / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

 

[LoAmmi]

I would really appreciate it if someone who advocates a removal of insurance in favor of paying cash to address my questions above.

How do you handle someone who has cancer or AIDS and cannot afford to pay for the treatments? Those are not considered ER type treatments, so they cannot simply go there.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Hearing that Obamacare will use a board of 15 men and women to decide what care you can get for any type of medical condition decided the issue for me. I'd probably be dead were it not for the FDA compassionate use exception, so this top/down micromanagement of health care is totally unacceptable to me. Obamacare isn't the right solution, and there are other ideas to solve these problems without moving towards socialized medicine.

 

[LoAmmi]

Hearing that Obamacare will use a board of 15 men and women to decide what care you can get for any type of medical condition decided the issue for me. I'd probably be dead were it not for the FDA compassionate use exception, so this top/down micromanagement of health care is totally unacceptable to me. Obamacare isn't the right solution, and there are other ideas to solve these problems without moving towards socialized medicine.

The law says that those people cannot recommend rationing care. It continues to be repeated that they will, but that is a lie. The truth is that the law written says care cannot be rationed. Period.

 

[AMDG]

The law says that those people cannot recommend rationing care. It continues to be repeated that they will, but that is a lie. The truth is that the law written says care cannot be rationed. Period.

Uh-huh. Keep believing. The board is there. The board is supposed to for keep expenses down--be cost effective. Let's see, now how will that be accomplished with 30 more million people added to the insurance rolls, 40% less doctors will be added (or at least not a single one will be added), the military (who signed up to get Tricare for life, will be shunted off to ObamaTAX--that will be breaking a contract, but Obama has done that before with GM and now with oil companies), over 700B has looted from Medicare to pay for Obamacare (Congressional investigation caught Sebelius red-handed with the double accounting)--oh and with all the baby boomers retiring? It will simply be a matter of applying age. The board will say "oh you don't need that mammogram since you are forty--oh that medication won't help with your breast cancer (I don't care if it does in Europe), but you can't have it, you're too old anyway, do as Obama says 'take a pain pill'--you can't have that treatment (it's reserved for those under 40, 'cost effective' you know). They just won't use the word "rationing". "Cost-effective" will be used. And it will be decided by age.

 

[LoAmmi]

Uh-huh. Keep believing. The board is there. The board is supposed to for keep expenses down--be cost effective. Let's see, now how will that be accomplished with 30 more million people added to the insurance rolls, 40% less doctors will be added (or at least not a single one will be added), the military (who signed up to get Tricare for life, will be shunted off to ObamaTAX--that will be breaking a contract, but Obama has done that before with GM and now with oil companies), over 700B has looted from Medicare to pay for Obamacare (Congressional investigation caught Sebelius red-handed with the double accounting)--oh and with all the baby boomers retiring? It will simply be a matter of applying age. The board will say "oh you don't need that mammogram since you are forty--oh that medication won't help with your breast cancer (I don't care if it does in Europe), but you can't have it, you're too old anyway, do as Obama says 'take a pain pill'--you can't have that treatment (it's reserved for those under 40, 'cost effective' you know). They just won't use the word "rationing". "Cost-effective" will be used. And it will be decided by age.

What are Wednesday night's lotto numbers? Powerball specifically.

Care to answer my harder question above about your out-of-pocket payments for people with cancer or AIDS?

 

[Needing_Grace]

I would really appreciate it if someone who advocates a removal of insurance in favor of paying cash to address my questions above.

How do you handle someone who has cancer or AIDS and cannot afford to pay for the treatments? Those are not considered ER type treatments, so they cannot simply go there.

Captain Kirk has the solution to this problem.

Let them die HD - YouTube

 

[LoAmmi]

Captain Kirk has the solution to this problem.

That's what I think the solution they present does, but I await the answer.



I'm not going to hold my breath waiting though.

 

[LoAmmi]

So, anybody care to step up to the plate and tell me how someone is going to be able to pay for chemotherapy out of pocket in the free-market system I've seen put forth? Even assuming a 10 times discount for "lack of paperwork" or whatever, it still could be 3000 every 8 weeks.

 

[Fantine]

So, anybody care to step up to the plate and tell me how someone is going to be able to pay for chemotherapy out of pocket in the free-market system I've seen put forth? Even assuming a 10 times discount for "lack of paperwork" or whatever, it still could be 3000 every 8 weeks.

Well if Ann Romney didn't spend $75K annually on her horse's living expenses, she could cover 25 months of chemo for the poor--maybe 4 people's lives would be saved...

 

[LoAmmi]

Well if Ann Romney didn't spend $75K annually on her horse's living expenses, she could cover 25 months of chemo for the poor--maybe 4 people's lives would be saved...

Under current expenses, if it were the maximum amount, she could cover 2 people because the high point is 30k. I imagine most people would be between 15-25k, which is still a lot of money for anybody.

 

[Fantine]

Obamacare: Rhetoric vs. reality - Bowling Green Daily News: Commentary

People opposed to the health insurance aren't heartless. They just know that there are *huge* drawbacks.

This article explains the Obamacare regulation that exempts businesses from having to provide insurance to employees if they only employ less than 50 full time employees. Have your hours cut (like the restraurant chains of Red Lobster and Olive Garden) so you only are a part-time employee now? Or did you get a pink slip because you are employee #50? Or perhaps you'd like a permanent full-time job, but can't find one? Remember to thank Obama and his cohorts.

You've brought up a good issue that is related to many, many more situations than the one you are referring to.

The two that stick out most in my mind are:

1) MCCAIN-FEINGOLD CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM: A bipartisan team worked to insure fair election campaigns with minimal attempts by big business to tilt the playing field and manipulate the emotions and decisions of the little guys. What happened? The legislation passed; corporations sued; the Supreme Court decided to call corporations people.

What else happened? Companies formed PAC's and forced (they called it encouraged) their employees to participate. My husband's company, for example, "encouraging" him to contribute $1300 a year.

2) PENSION REFORM: NY Senator Jacob Javits, who saw how NY factory workers lost pensions they'd worked 30 years to get after their factories moved to Alabama (yeah, in the 60's that was where they moved, and that was how my hubby's grandma lost her pension). He passed pension reform which guaranteed vesting and guaranteed pensions.

And companies set up 401K's instead of pensions....and sometimes they didn't even contribute a dime towards them....

Three legislators of conscience: McCain, Feingold, and Javits (two Republican, by the way). Trying to make the world a better place.

And, on the "looking for loopholes" side, big business and the Supreme Court mucking it up.

Sorry, but your post on Obama's plan pales compared to the treachery of these two actions.

 

[dysert]

This may deserve its own thread, but nonetheless...

I just got a notice from my employer that our insurance costs are jumping 38% "due to governmental changes". This is insane! Obamacare must be repealed or we'll all go broke.

 

[MikeK]

This may deserve its own thread, but nonetheless...

I just got a notice from my employer that our insurance costs are jumping 38% "due to governmental changes". This is insane! Obamacare must be repealed or we'll all go broke.

If a 38% increase on something that is likely 10% of your pay or so makes you "go broke", your financial plan was not very solid.