Obamacare upheld

[BengalBacker]

 

 

This comes from a friend of mine who is a Harvard grad and an economist, I expect you to reject it because you know..."socialism"

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/business/what-sweden-can-tell-us-about-obamacare.html?_r=1&

 

That's a single payer system, right? Is that what we were told Obamacare was supposed to be? And note this from the article;
 

 

 

IS there a catch? When I asked my Swedish hosts to describe any downsides to their system, several mentioned the waiting times for certain nonemergency services. One told me that whereas in the United States a wealthy or well-insured patient might schedule a hip replacement with only a week’s notice, in Sweden the wait could be as long as three months. He described such waits as a design feature, noting that they allowed facilities to be used at consistently high capacity, and thus more efficiently.

 

 

I guess that's better unless you're the one who's in pain and off work waiting your turn in line.

[|Elflocko|]

 

That's a single payer system, right? Is that what we were told Obamacare was supposed to be? And note this from the article;
 

 

I guess that's better unless you're the one who's in pain and off work waiting your turn in line.

 

Nope.  That's what many of us desperately wanted, but it became very clear very quickly that it was not to be.

[BengalBacker]

 

Nope.  That's what many of us desperately wanted, but it became very clear very quickly that it was not to be.

 

Be patient, because this is going to be such a clusterfuck people will be ready to accept single payer to kill the albatross. Just like the plan.

[Jamie_B]

Here is the 10 minute video of Pelosi's speech where she made the "pass the bill to find out what's in it" comment.

 

http://youtu.be/nWEeP7bY9Lw

 

 

What "context" am I missing that makes this a reasonable thing to say?

 

 

"So you can find out what is in it away from the fog of the controversy."

 

With the fact that there were numorous lies being told about this bill, how can you not understand that context?

 

Shes essentially saying you need to actually see the bill in action vs what is being lied about with it

 

Youre smarter than that

[Jamie_B]

 

That's a single payer system, right? Is that what we were told Obamacare was supposed to be? And note this from the article;
 

 

I guess that's better unless you're the one who's in pain and off work waiting your turn in line.

 

 

Obama said if he could create a system from scratch he would do single payer.

 

Obamacare is no where near single payer, its actually a bill written by the heritage foundation (a conservative think tank) that was based on romneycare

[Jamie_B]

 

Be patient, because this is going to be such a clusterfuck people will be ready to accept single payer to kill the albatross. Just like the plan.

 

Frankly that's what Im hoping

[|Elflocko|]

 
Frankly that's what Im hoping

X2, because the current law is an unmitigated abortion...

[BengalBacker]

 

 

"So you can find out what is in it away from the fog of the controversy."

 

With the fact that there were numorous lies being told about this bill, how can you not understand that context?

 

Shes essentially saying you need to actually see the bill in action vs what is being lied about with it

 

Youre smarter than that

 

 

You mean the lies saying it was going to be a clusterfuck, or the lies that it was going to save families $2500 per year and if you like your current insurance nothing would change?

[Jamie_B]

 

 

You mean the lies saying it was going to be a clusterfuck, or the lies that it was going to save families $2500 per year and if you like your current insurance nothing would change?

 

 

No I mean these

[|kennethmw|]

That's a single payer system, right? Is that what we were told Obamacare was supposed to be? And note this from the article;
 

 
I guess that's better unless you're the one who's in pain and off work waiting your turn in line.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that neither you or me is wealthy enough or has good insurance enough to not wait the 3 months, but we pay a much higher cost for our overall care than the guy over there does for the exact same procedure.

[Jamie_B]

The problem with this kind of thinking is that neither you or me is wealthy enough or has good insurance enough to not wait the 3 months, but we pay a much higher cost for our overall care than the guy over there does for the exact same procedure.

 

 

Also as far as wait time, it sounds like an opportunity to create good paying jobs.

[|OneHeartBeat|]

 

Frankly that's what Im hoping

 

Why do you think a single payer system would work? Who would run this system? The government? Seems like a situation ripe for corruption.

[Jamie_B]

 

Why do you think a single payer system would work? Who would run this system? The government? Seems like a situation ripe for corruption.

 

 

Because it's proven to work in other countries

 

uh... you cant possibly believe the current health care system, even before Obamacare isnt corrupt?

[Jamie_B]

From the WSJ

[|OneHeartBeat|]

 

 

Because it's proven to work in other countries

 

uh... you cant possibly believe the current health care system, even before Obamacare isnt corrupt?

There is no perfect system whether it be socialized or non-socialized. You seem to put quite a bit of faith in our government to somehow manage this single payer system without fucking it up. Why? I'm not crazy about the idea of them having that much control. Is the current system a mess? Absolutely, but name me one perfectly flawless healthcare system?

[Jamie_B]

There is no perfect system whether it be socialized or non-socialized. You seem to put quite a bit of faith in our government to somehow manage this single payer system without fucking it up. Why? I'm not crazy about the idea of them having that much control. Is the current system a mess? Absolutely, but name me one perfectly flawless healthcare system?

 

Who said I expect a perfect system? I expect a single payer system to be better than what we have because it is better than what we have, we can measure that looking at the system in other countries. Sure wait times go up, but costs go down and more people are covered. Our system before obamacare you would have things like a pre existing condition of being a woman. That's not some thing anyone should be ok with.

 

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/why-being-female-is-a-pre-existing-condition/

[|OneHeartBeat|]

 

Who said I expect a perfect system? I expect a single payer system to be better than what we have because it is better than what we have, we can measure that looking at the system in other countries. Sure wait times go up, but costs go down and more people are covered. Our system before obamacare you would have things like a pre existing condition of being a woman. That's not some thing anyone should be ok with.

 

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/why-being-female-is-a-pre-existing-condition/

 

Being a woman is not considered a universal pre-exisiting condition; that's liberal spin. Health care reform has to be comprehensive. Overuse and unnecessary procedures, tests etc. is a huge part of the costs, over-regulation in some cases, people not taking responsibility for their own health, not changing their behaviors etc. I would support a supplemental public option that would provide emergency coverage for catastrophic and unexpected conditions. While we want the same things, we disagree on how it can be solved.

[|Elflocko|]

You state that "over-regulation" is part of the reason for excessive healthcare costs.  As someone who has spent 10 of the last 13 years in the health care industry in various capacities including working for a very large health insurer, I counter that much more regulation is needed, particularly on the health insurers themselves.  A huge part of the cost of health care services in this country is due to the built-in complexity in submitting claims, and the egregious "administrative costs" which in other industrialized countries are capped at 13% or less can exceed 80% here.  Or how about the fact that there is no regulation or framework on exactly how much things cost?  That's why the same MRI can range in cost from $500 to $10,000 depending on whether the insurance company's sales rep sent a nice enough gift basket to the group or hospital in question.  

 

Your simplistic rhetoric does nothing to address any of the real underlying issues that make fixing our excessive healthcare costs substantially more difficult than plugging in a toaster. 

 

You also mention people "not taking responsibility for their own health".  Perhaps if access to fruits and vegetables was as cheap and easy as access to a bag of Fritos and a case of diet soda, people would have an easier time with that.  Or perhaps if they knew they could go get a checkup without getting a $600 bill in the mail, or didn't have a $15,000 yearly out of pocket deductible for a family of four, etc., etc., etc...

 

TL\DR; the general public is completely and utterly clueless in regard to the complexity of this issue and to the underhanded shenanigans going on behind the curtain.

 

Now I know how BJ feels when people discuss Middle Eastern relations on here... :mellow:

[Jamie_B]

You state that "over-regulation" is part of the reason for excessive healthcare costs.  As someone who has spent 10 of the last 13 years in the health care industry in various capacities including working for a very large health insurer, I counter that much more regulation is needed, particularly on the health insurers themselves.  A huge part of the cost of health care services in this country is due to the built-in complexity in submitting claims, and the egregious "administrative costs" which in other industrialized countries are capped at 13% or less can exceed 80% here.  Or how about the fact that there is no regulation or framework on exactly how much things cost?  That's why the same MRI can range in cost from $500 to $10,000 depending on whether the insurance company's sales rep sent a nice enough gift basket to the group or hospital in question.  

 

Your simplistic rhetoric does nothing to address any of the real underlying issues that make fixing our excessive healthcare costs substantially more difficult than plugging in a toaster. 

 

You also mention people "not taking responsibility for their own health".  Perhaps if access to fruits and vegetables was as cheap and easy as access to a bag of Fritos and a case of diet soda, people would have an easier time with that.  Or perhaps if they knew they could go get a checkup without getting a $600 bill in the mail, or didn't have a $15,000 yearly out of pocket deductible for a family of four, etc., etc., etc...

 

TL\DR; the general public is completely and utterly clueless in regard to the complexity of this issue and to the underhanded shenanigans going on behind the curtain.

 

Now I know how BJ feels when people discuss Middle Eastern relations on here... :mellow:

 

 

this

[Jamie_B]

Rick this is for you on HSAs

 

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_10/007463.php

[Justice]

You state that "over-regulation" is part of the reason for excessive healthcare costs.  As someone who has spent 10 of the last 13 years in the health care industry in various capacities including working for a very large health insurer, I counter that much more regulation is needed, particularly on the health insurers themselves.  A huge part of the cost of health care services in this country is due to the built-in complexity in submitting claims, and the egregious "administrative costs" which in other industrialized countries are capped at 13% or less can exceed 80% here.  Or how about the fact that there is no regulation or framework on exactly how much things cost?  That's why the same MRI can range in cost from $500 to $10,000 depending on whether the insurance company's sales rep sent a nice enough gift basket to the group or hospital in question.  

 

Your simplistic rhetoric does nothing to address any of the real underlying issues that make fixing our excessive healthcare costs substantially more difficult than plugging in a toaster. 

 

You also mention people "not taking responsibility for their own health".  Perhaps if access to fruits and vegetables was as cheap and easy as access to a bag of Fritos and a case of diet soda, people would have an easier time with that.  Or perhaps if they knew they could go get a checkup without getting a $600 bill in the mail, or didn't have a $15,000 yearly out of pocket deductible for a family of four, etc., etc., etc...

 

TL\DR; the general public is completely and utterly clueless in regard to the complexity of this issue and to the underhanded shenanigans going on behind the curtain.

 

Now I know how BJ feels when people discuss Middle Eastern relations on here... :mellow:

actually John Mccain wanted insurances to pay for gym memberships..ron paul wanted alternative care and cheaper fruits and veggies..we just voted that down..

[Go Skins]

http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/03/smallbusiness/obamacare-employer-mandate/index.html?iid=Lead

 

The Obamacare employer mandate has been delayed by a year to 2015, meaning that many businesses can push back providing worker health insurance a bit longer.

When the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010, it required that companies with 50-plus full-timers start providing them coverage in 2014 -- or face penalties.

 

That changed on Tuesday. In a blog post, the U.S. Treasury Department explained that the government needs time to simplify reporting requirements, and businesses need breathing room to adapt to the changes.

"This provides vital breathing room. I think businesses are relieved there's more time to get this right," said James A. Klein, president of the American Benefits Council, an employer benefits advocacy group.

Here's what businesses and workers need to know.

Who's affected?

A relatively small share of the country's businesses fall under Obamacare's employer rules, and most of those that do already provide insurance. That might sound surprising, because the biggest Obamacare myth spouted by opponents is that it will crush small business.

The vast majority of the nation's businesses, 97% of them, are too small to be affected.

What's more, most larger employers already provide insurance anyway. Of the nation's 6.5 million workplaces, only about 70,000 -- a little more than 1% -- must actually start providing insurance.

Then why does this matter?

The mandate affects most of the nation's workers. According to the latest Census data, close to 80 million people work at firms that must provide insurance. Though most of them are offered insurance, that still leaves millions who will have to wait another year.

[bengalrick]

Rick this is for you on HSAs

 

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_10/007463.php

 

Thanks for posting. I just noticed this because I try to stay out of this thread. 

 

As far as the content of this post though, I have to somewhat call bs on it. For one thing, they mention that people will avoid using their insurance so they can stack up money. That is not true. Before I had my HSA, I didn't do a physical since HS football required it... or a cholesterol check since never. Reason being is because I was relatively healthy and didn't feel the need for either. Then I got the high deductible plan and both are 100% free because both are preventative health care. So I did both and have continued doing both for the 5 years I've had them. Come to find out, I have extremely high triglycerides that can only be controlled with medication. 

 

The point is, I do avoid going to the emergency room except for emergencies... I don't go to the doctors unless its either preventative or very much needed. But honestly none of this is a bad thing for anyone really.

 

As far as blowing through your deductible, my wife and I have had 2 babies while on our high deductible plan. Don't get me wrong, having babies without co-pay is expensive. But a few points to make here.  Almost all high deductible plans have a deductible (obviously) and an out-of-pocket maximum. So no matter what happens during the year, my family cannot pay more than $4,000 between the 4 of us. A few years after our first baby, we were confident we were going to have another during that year. I figured up what it would cost with traditional healthcare vs. an HSA. I was very surprised that if we had a baby, we would pay about $500 more with an HSA. But if we didn't, we would save around $1,500. Even though we were confident we would get pregnant we still went with the HSA and I have no problem with that decision at all. After hitting my out-of-pocket maximum I was able to finally get my sleep study done, found out I had sleep apnea, and got a cpap machine for basically nothing... Worked out beautifully for me and especially my wife (who got no sleep b/c of my loud ass ;) )

 

Overall, HSA's have been great to me. Does it help the health care system = I don't know. I'm not smart enough to do all that research and evaluation. It has helped my family and has helped me make better decisions with my health care. 

 

On a side note, I see the point this post was making. But one thing that always pissed me off is having my health care costs rise so much because of the 'sick people.' I would have insurance in case of a catastrophe with me or my family. High deductible fit the bill for me. Its also nice not having to pay out of my pocket for basically any cost. I just use my HSA Visa card. Might not sound like a big deal but $40 for this medication or $50 for this emergency room visit adds up out of your regular budget.

[|Elflocko|]

http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/03/smallbusiness/obamacare-employer-mandate/index.html?iid=Lead

 

The Obamacare employer mandate has been delayed by a year to 2015, meaning that many businesses can push back providing worker health insurance a bit longer.

When the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010, it required that companies with 50-plus full-timers start providing them coverage in 2014 -- or face penalties.

 

That changed on Tuesday. In a blog post, the U.S. Treasury Department explained that the government needs time to simplify reporting requirements, and businesses need breathing room to adapt to the changes.

"This provides vital breathing room. I think businesses are relieved there's more time to get this right," said James A. Klein, president of the American Benefits Council, an employer benefits advocacy group.

Here's what businesses and workers need to know.

Who's affected?

A relatively small share of the country's businesses fall under Obamacare's employer rules, and most of those that do already provide insurance. That might sound surprising, because the biggest Obamacare myth spouted by opponents is that it will crush small business.

The vast majority of the nation's businesses, 97% of them, are too small to be affected.

What's more, most larger employers already provide insurance anyway. Of the nation's 6.5 million workplaces, only about 70,000 -- a little more than 1% -- must actually start providing insurance.

Then why does this matter?

The mandate affects most of the nation's workers. According to the latest Census data, close to 80 million people work at firms that must provide insurance. Though most of them are offered insurance, that still leaves millions who will have to wait another year.

 

This is happening because

 

A.  The exchanges are not nearly ready yet

 

-and-

 

B.  There are tons of lobbyists from just about every company you can imagine pouring millions of dollars into "our" representatives pockets because not only do they not want to do it, but they're hoping they can push it off long enough for Obama to vacate office in favor of a Republican so they can rewrite the law in their favor.

 

 

 

But one thing that always pissed me off is having my health care costs rise so much because of the 'sick people.' 

 

So many variables contribute to all of those 'sick people'.  Perhaps it's because we have a disease treatment system instead of a healthcare system since there is more money to be made treating sick people than keeping folks healthy.

 

Just food for thought... :mellow:

[Jamie_B]

So many variables contribute to all of those 'sick people'.  Perhaps it's because we have a disease treatment system instead of a healthcare system since there is more money to be made treating sick people than keeping folks healthy.

 

Just food for thought... :mellow:

 

which imo plays a factor in the high costs of healthy food vs garbage

 

And don't get me started on gmo's