"Obamacare"

[iluvatar5150]

I see the problem, but if someone didn't want it when they were healthy; then why should we let them get benefits just because they get sick.

Because we're better than that - or at least we ought to be.

-Dan.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Because we're better than that - or at least we ought to be.

-Dan.

by than what?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

I did NOT say that as it is now, but if someone has CHOSEN to not pay into the government system but then they want it when they get sick is that right either? Again, if they want treatment they can have it, but they should not accept government care if they felt they did not need it and only want the benefits when they do.

This is the whole reason they put the mandate in the Affordable Care Act...so everyone would be forced to buy insurance. That way, there wouldn't be anyone waiting until they get sick to see a doctor; everyone would have insurance.

I personally would have preferred a universal system where everyone gets automatic coverage that is funded through taxes. But if the Affordable Care Act is the best we can do right now, it'll do.

Are you now back-tracking on the "they should be denied" if they didn't buy insurance stance?

 

[dogs4thewin]

This is the whole reason they put the mandate in the Affordable Care Act...so everyone would be forced to buy insurance. That way, there wouldn't be anyone waiting until they get sick to see a doctor; everyone would have insurance.

I personally would have preferred a universal system where everyone gets automatic coverage that is funded through taxes. But if the Affordable Care Act is the best we can do right now, it'll do.

Are you now back-tracking on the "they should be denied" if they didn't buy insurance stance?

or pay a fine those people are in effect CHOOSING not to be covered.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

or pay a fine those people are in effect CHOOSING not to be covered.

If those fine-payers require emergent surgery to save their lives, what should then happen? Should the docs let them die on the street after refusing to examine them because they didn't buy insurance?

 

[dogs4thewin]

If those fine-payers require emergent surgery to save their lives, what should then happen? Should the docs let them die on the street after refusing to examine them because they didn't buy insurance?

no I am talking about long-term treatment here.

 

[TScott]

For instance: Suppose a hard-working family man with a low income is feeling quite sick. He doesn't know what is wrong, and cannot afford medical care, so he struggles on. It turns out he has diabetes and before long he will end up in the emergency room needing an amputation. If he had had early medical intervention, the problem could have been detected and easily treated. But instead he faces an amputation and possible loss of his life. This kind of situation happens all too often in America.

That's right. It was happening 10s of thousands of times a year. Not only is it tragic, but also expensive and we were all paying. Problems that could easily be fixed for a few hundred or a few thousand dollars of treatment end up costing 10s and even hundreds of thousands of dollars.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

no I am talking about long-term treatment here.

How is it any different?

 

[doubtingmerle]

We already have Medicare and Medicaid.

Well, yes, but Medicaid is for people with restricted income with disabilities.

Like I said, 40,000 people die each year because they don't have insurance. Most of those cannot get on Medicaid. So if they cannot get on Medicaid or Medicare, this does not address their problem.

The biggest plight that exists in my mind is for those who have pre-existing conditions. Getting affordable coverage for them would probably be difficult to accomplish without a personal mandate.

I agree the mandate is required (unless we have full government healthcare/insurance) So what should we do? If we need the mandate in order to help these people through private insurance, are you in favor of the mandate? If not, does that mean you want to just let those people go without healthcare?

In my opinion, the Supreme Court made a mistake in not striking down the law as unconstitutional. The intent of the constitution was to decentralize power and limit the powers of the federal government. The court just gave the Obama administration and all the control happy liberals the leg up they needed to implement further government control over the people.

And before you go on saying that I am paranoid and should not be concerned about such things - just look at what's happening in California and New York. They banned happy meal toys in San Fransisco and Bloomberg is trying to tell retailers in New York that they cannot sell 16 oz. sodas for Pete's sake. The government has no business trying to micromanage people's lives in such ways.

And people are trying to restrict who people can marry. And people are trying to restrict selling of beer on Sunday.

Let's oppose silly restrictions. Let's be in favor of plans that keep people from dying. Do you agree?

There are ways to lower the costs of healthcare without government control. An alternative plan would start with reforming the tax code. Currently health insurance premiums are a tax exempt item. This favors those who are in higher income tax brackets. Giving a tax credit instead of a deduction would even the playing field and provide more incentive for those in lower income brackets to purchase insurance.

Huh? What if a person currently pays no income tax. How is your plan going to help him?

What if a person pays $200 in income tax. So he could then buy a $10,000 insurance plan, and use the credit to save the $200 he spends on taxes?

Gee, thanks for the help, but do you understand that this isn't going to be enough to enable this man to go out and buy insurance.

Then, as others have mentioned, you would allow health insurance to be sold on a national market. In theory this would help eliminate insurance monopolies and create a more competitive market, hopefully bringing premiums down or slowing their rate of increase.

Insurance companies don't have monopolies. The issue here is that they must meet the state regulations for the state in which they sell. Some argue that we should allow insurers to meet the regulations of another state instead of the state they are selling to, but this has all kinds of problems. See Articles: The Folly of Interstate Health Insurance Competition and Will Buying Health Insurance Across State Lines Reduce Costs? - Forbes.

This would have little effect in giving better insurance value for the dollar.

Combine this with tort reform to help keep medical costs down.

As was discussed before, malpractice costs are only 2.4% of medical care. So even if you eliminated all malpractice suits--and that is not a good idea--you only cut costs 2.4%. None of this helps the poor much at all when they try to buy insurance.

The bottom line is no system is perfect, and the ACA will likely end up being much more expensive that what the Obama administration claims.

OF course no system is perfect.

So do we just let 40,000 people die each year until we get it perfect? Why not start with what we have?

Free market solutions were not even persued, instead the Obama administration went straight after government control.

Excuse me, but Obamacare is a free market solution. Obama wanted a government run plan instead. There were too many objectors, so he settled on the Republican plan that relied on free market insurance providers and mandates.

So can we get with the program, and help these people in need with what we have, while we discuss something better?

The sad thing is, it gains him political points with all the people who think they are getting "free stuff," and don't understand that nothing is free.

He also gains a lot of political points from people like me who have good insurance, but want to do something for those who don't.

An to top it all off, the Obama administration has provided no way by which to enforce the individual mandate. You don't think this is a huge issue? If premiums begin to rise and people begin to drop coverage, the entire thing would spiral out of control.

So perhaps we should make enforcement of Obamacare stronger, yes?

The points on the religious freedoms of different groups are valid, and something I have considered.

OK, but you had said, "Not to mention that plan B and other forms of birth control which I consider to be immoral will no doubt also be covered - this is an assault on my religious freedom." (emphasis added).

And so you now admit this is not an assault on religious freedom? Yes, I agree. Electricity in operating rooms is not an assault on the religious freedom of the Amish, nor is government funded birth control an assault on your religious freedon.

To answer your question - in a democracy, unfortunately, it is only the number of votes which can sway the actions of the government.

Unfortunately?!

Unfortunately?!

Pray tell me, why is it unfortunate that votes sway the actions of the government?????? I would have thought that was a good thing.

The sad thing is, when you present this to the proponents of Obamacare you either get ignored because people think they are going to get "free stuff", or people try to make it sound like you're not concerned with people dying, as has been prevalent in this thread.

Are you concerned about the 40,000 people who die each year because they have no health insurance? So far you have issued a non-stop attack on the only active plan to solve that problem, and you have offered nothing that will make a significant dent on the problem.

If you are concerned, why not get onboard with this solution until you actually come up with a better plan that will solve it?

You're not doing much good for the uninsured if you run the economy into the ground and drive the deficit up to unsustainable levels. You just end up with more problems than you started with.

You must have really hated the performance of Bush, yes?

Obamacare is gradually being implemented now. There is no way it can be blamed for the market crash of 2007 to 2008.

 

[MarkSB]

I've not much time, so to address the questions which have short answers:

Huh? What if a person currently pays no income tax. How is your plan going to help him?

What if a person pays $200 in income tax. So he could then buy a $10,000 insurance plan, and use the credit to save the $200 he spends on taxes?

Gee, thanks for the help, but do you understand that this isn't going to be enough to enable this man to go out and buy insurance.

Simple - you make the credit refundable.

Who you give the credit to and how much of a credit you give will let you control how the credit will affect revenues. I would favor giving the credit only to those with medium to low income, since those are the groups that need the incentive to buy insurance. People with higher incomes will buy health insurance regardless.

OK, but you had said, "Not to mention that plan B and other forms of birth control which I consider to be immoral will no doubt also be covered - this is an assault on my religious freedom." (emphasis added).

And so you now admit this is not an assault on religious freedom? Yes, I agree.

No, I didn't say that, and I don't see how you could possibly get that out of what I said.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Unfortunately?!
Unfortunately?!
Pray tell me, why is it unfortunate that votes sway the actions of the government?????? I would have thought that was a good thing.

Because people, generally, are idiots. Always remember that 50% of Americans have below average IQ. And they vote for stupid stuff for stupid reasons. Democracy is great, when it works, but the system is so derailed by lobbyists and the 24 hour news cycle that America is pretty far from a genuine representitive democracy at the moment (or republic, for the pedants in the audience)

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, I didn't say that, and I don't see how you could possibly get that out of what I said.

Sigh, what you said was, "Not to mention that plan B and other forms of birth control which I consider to be immoral will no doubt also be covered - this is an assault on my religious freedom." (emphasis added)."

Please answer clearly. Were you or were you not saying that this is an assault on your religious freedom? It sure looks to me like that is what you are saying. If that is not what this means, then what in the heck does it mean???

Is it or is it not an assault on the Mennonite's freedom of religion when we use his tax money to build a bomb?

Is it or is it not an assault on the Amish freedom of religion when we use their tax money for electricity in a government office?

Are you saying that we need to turn off all government electricity and destroy all bombs and stop funding birth control pills, else we are assaulting personal religious freedom? Is that what you are saying?

Or is it only your religion that is subject to this special treatment?

I contend that it is not an assault on one's freedom of religion if government chooses to do something you disagree with.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Simple - you make the credit refundable.

Who you give the credit to and how much of a credit you give will let you control how the credit will affect revenues. I would favor giving the credit only to those with medium to low income, since those are the groups that need the incentive to buy insurance.

A refundable tax credit? So if a person has income so low that he currently pays no income tax, and if he were to take out a health insurance policy for $10,000, what would his net tax bill be in your plan? Would he then owe the government negative $10,000? In other words, would he then wait for a $10,000 check to arrive in the mail?

If so, do you agree with the part of Obamacare that pays the healthcare premiums for the poorest people?

 

[dogs4thewin]

How is it any different?

One is keeping someone from dying on the spot the other is supporting them over the longer-term.

 

[MarkSB]

Sigh, what you said was, "Not to mention that plan B and other forms of birth control which I consider to be immoral will no doubt also be covered - this is an assault on my religious freedom." (emphasis added)."

Please answer clearly. Were you or were you not saying that this is an assault on your religious freedom? It sure looks to me like that is what you are saying. If that is not what this means, then what in the heck does it mean???

I clearly said it was an assault on my religious freedom. I don't understand how in my post next post how you got that I was then saying I did not think it was an assault on my religious freedom (?). I simply agreed with you that other groups could also view the things you mentioned as a violation of their religious freedom and left it at that.

If any person did not want to supporting a war they did not agree with, and by moral conviction chose not to pay taxes because of it, I would not fault that person for following their conviction. One should then be prepared to accept the consequences of such an action.

That's my view - if you don't like it, tough beans.

Is it or is it not an assault on the Mennonite's freedom of religion when we use his tax money to build a bomb?

Is it or is it not an assault on the Amish freedom of religion when we use their tax money for electricity in a government office?

Are you saying that we need to turn off all government electricity and destroy all bombs and stop funding birth control pills, else we are assaulting personal religious freedom? Is that what you are saying?

Or is it only your religion that is subject to this special treatment?

I contend that it is not an assault on one's freedom of religion if government chooses to do something you disagree with.

Nowhere did I say any one religion deserves special treatment. I clearly stated that only the number of votes could sway the government action, did I not? Otherwise, if a group or individual felt such conviction, they could oppose said government action by other, peaceful means.

 

[cow451]

(or republic, for the pedants in the audience)

Well, excuuuuuuse me, Ms. smarty pants.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

One is keeping someone from dying on the spot the other is supporting them over the longer-term.

It is far more complicated than that. Lots of acute emergencies leave lasting consequences, or at the very least require quite a bit of follow-up. For example, someone with an embolic small bowel infarct that survives because of emergent surgery will be on anticoagulants the rest of their life. If the patient was uninsured, should the surgeons not have bothered to save the patient's life? After all, they'll need medications for the rest of their life.

 

[MarkSB]

A refundable tax credit? So if a person has income so low that he currently pays no income tax, and if he were to take out a health insurance policy for $10,000, what would his net tax bill be in your plan? Would he then owe the government negative $10,000? In other words, would he then wait for a $10,000 check to arrive in the mail?

Please read up on what a refundable tax credit is and how they work. They have maximum dollar values. With a health insurance tax credit, you would most likely have the dollar value of the credit vary according to income and number of dependents.

If so, do you agree with the part of Obamacare that pays the healthcare premiums for the poorest people?

I am not at all familiar with that part of the bill so I cannot speak to it. All I know is that it is a bill that could very well increase insurance premiums. With higher insurance premiums and no means by which enforce the penalty for not carrying coverage, it could effectively exacerbate the problem of adverse selection.

The bottom line is it is not a bill that was well written, as the CEO of Aetna pointed out. No one knows what the effects are going to be, and the onus is on employers to provide coverage when it is very likely that the bill could cause premiums to rise beyond their normal rate in the next few years. Do you think this is a wise thing to do in the current economy?

The alternative plan which I have presented here would remove the burden of healthcare from employers entirely. Without Obamacare looming on the horizon, employers would be more likely to hire. Wages could possibly increase. A decrease in unemployment would help government revenue and not to mention help the economy. In other words, remove the climate of fear that Obama has created in the marketplace.

 

[cow451]

The bottom line is it is not a bill that was well written, as the CEO of Aetna pointed out. No one knows what the effects are going to be, and the onus is on employers to provide coverage when it is very likely that the bill could cause premiums to rise beyond their normal rate in the next few years. Do you think this is a wise thing to do in the current economy?

Aetna, et al, liked it fine until they found out that they wouild have to spend at least 80% of premiums on actual healthcare and rebate any amount not meeting that standard to those having paid the premiums.

There is no objective evidence the ACA will have any real impact on the economy.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I clearly said it was an assault on my religious freedom. I don't understand how in my post next post how you got that I was then saying I did not think it was an assault on my religious freedom (?). I simply agreed with you that other groups could also view the things you mentioned as a violation of their religious freedom and left it at that.

I didn't ask if the others think it is an assault on their freedom. I asked if you think it is an assault on their freedom of religion. Do you think we are assaulting the religious freedom of others when we spend money on the military? If you think this is an assault on religious freedom then do you want to continue to assault the religious freedom of others by supporting the military? If you don't think it is an assault on their freedom, then why do you say it is an assault on your freedom of religion when we use tax money for something you don't like, but not an assault on freedom when we do the same to other religions?

If any person did not want to supporting a war they did not agree with, and by moral conviction chose not to pay taxes because of it, I would not fault that person for following their conviction. One should then be prepared to accept the consequences of such an action.

Sure, they could rebel. That is not the question. The question is whether you sir are assaulting their freedom of religion if you vote in favor of spending money on defense.

I don't think that when the government spends money on electricity, guns, or birth control, it is an assault on the freedom of personal religion. For some reason you think the third one is a personal assault, and you refuse to tell us if the first two are assaults on the freedom of religion.

Nowhere did I say any one religion deserves special treatment. I clearly stated that only the number of votes could sway the government action, did I not?

Sigh. Once more:

1. Is it an assault on personal freedom of religion if a government office use electricity? (you have not answered)
2. Is it an assault on personal freedom of religion if a government has a military? (you have not answered)
3. Is it an assault on personal freedom of religion if a government sponsers birth controls that you disagree with? (This you say is an assault)

If you say that only number 3 is an assault on religious freedom, then you are making number 3 special.