Health Care changes

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 361 - 380 of total 1450 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Nov 7, 2013 - 03:31pm PT
righto Dave..
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 7, 2013 - 04:28pm PT
What Democrat hinted that he or she was willing to consider changes to acquire Republican votes?


Almost all of them.

They didn't just hint. They compromised right out of the gate.

That's why the ACA is modeled after the Republican/Romneycare plan and not single payer.

The Democrats made a HUGE compromise from the beginning.

I think you understand this John. You are abusing the false equivalence argument.

BINGO !!

Curt
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 7, 2013 - 04:47pm PT
The problem with Obamacare is that the government will now completely F'UP what was a well intentioned idea.

Implementation is going well....right?

I am so excited for this Obamacare.

I should expect reasonable care for free almost free if I don't work(subsidies). If I do work and make a very modest middle class income, I have to pay more than I pay in rent/mortgage to the government for insurance that really only covers me for catastrophic events because the massive deductible.

This is awesome !

Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 7, 2013 - 05:04pm PT
The problem with Obamacare is that the government will now completely F'UP what was a well intentioned idea.

Implementation is going well....right?

I am so excited for this Obamacare.

I should expect reasonable care for free almost free if I don't work(subsidies). If I do work and make a very modest middle class income, I have to pay more than I pay in rent/mortgage to the government for insurance that really only covers me for catastrophic events because the massive deductible.

This is awesome !

I know. It's a horribly flawed idea, concocted by the Heritage Foundation and first implemented by Mitt Romney. We should scrap it immediately and follow the lead of every other industrialized country in the world, by putting a single-payer healthcare system in place.

Curt
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 7, 2013 - 05:22pm PT
Good luck with that.
Looking forward to the smooth roll out and great care for a reasonable price.





Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 7, 2013 - 05:26pm PT
Good luck with that.

Correct. Because of Republicans.

Curt
Snowmassguy

Trad climber
Calirado
Nov 7, 2013 - 05:38pm PT
^^^ That is the problem with this whole Obamacare thing. Republicans, Democrats blah blah blah.

Obamacare is failing because of ( insert political party name)

TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Nov 7, 2013 - 06:53pm PT
Remember, Not a single Republican voted for the Unaffordable Heath Care Tax in either house and Dingy Harry, and Nancy had to "diem" it passed because they didn't have enough votes to pass it under regular order.


On another sour note,



http://capitolcityproject.com/delaware-spends-4-million-on-obamacare-enrollment-signs-up-four-people/
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Nov 7, 2013 - 09:09pm PT
http://obamacaresignups.net/
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 7, 2013 - 09:28pm PT
I'm with neither party, so this response is not "partisan." I will merely float two data points first hand:

1) One of my company's partners used to purchase his own insurance. Low deductible and low copay, it was still cheap (barely over $100 per month) because of his age, health, and habits. That policy recently went away, and now he must purchase something on the "exchange" (or pay an ever increasing fine to get nothing). He's looked on the exchange, and even the "gold" plan is nothing CLOSE to as good as what he was buying on his own. And his cost for the privilege of very inferior insurance is (wait for it....): double the price per month.

2) My company completely pays for the health insurance of all of its employees. I mean 100% of the cost of our small group plan, and we buy great insurance through Anthem. Again, low deductible and low copay. Our small group rate is affordable, and we consider 100%-paid coverage one of the "thanks yous" we can give to our employees. Sometime in 2014 either Anthem is planning to drop these small group policies or increase the price by 40%-60%. So, we're in limbo, and either option takes us out of our previous game. Either way, health care is going to cost our employees SIGNIFICANTLY more! I mean a LOT more, because we simply will not be able to afford to 100% pay for this "new" coverage. So, like in (1), our employees are going to GET significantly less and pay significantly more.

Already my company pays ridiculous taxes, and this new "tax" hurts exactly whom? Well, the very employees that Ocare was promised to help. And the "keep your plan" bovine defecation is literally just that: Pure, steaming, loose, and runny. Oh, and very, very stinky as well.

Now, I know the response already: Well, Ocare was put in place to provide coverage for millions of uninsured Americans, because SOMETHING just MUST be done in a "humane" society.

So, let me ask a few questions about all this "humane" business....

1) Is it "humane" to allow people that obviously and absolutely CANNOT afford it to keep on breeding and breeding and breeding? I mean, if supposedly I have some responsibility (being "humane" and all) to pay for all the kids that are popped out (that the parents KNOW they can't afford), then along with that "responsibility" I get some rights! One of those rights that logically follows from this "responsibility" is: I get to choose who gets to have kids. Right? And, if not, please explain how I am forced to be in a situation of unlimited exposure to risk with exactly zero power to mitigate against or control that risk! How EXACTLY in principle is this any different from you putting a gun to my head and FORCING me to play 1/6 Russian Roulette, then 1/3, then 1/2, and so on.

2) Is it "humane" to intentionally screw over huge segments of society in order to benefit others? I mean, why is the fact that poor people can "only" go to the ER (for free) somehow so "inhumane," when by "fixing" that "problem," you are doubling (or more) the costs to the people that have been paying and paying ALL ALONG?

3) DO we REALLY want to become just another European socialist democracy?

ALL I know for SURE is that in my sphere Ocare is proving to be a DISASTER of literally EPIC proportions, and it will completely change our business model! And THAT was not supposed to be the result to SMALL businesses nor their employees.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Nov 7, 2013 - 09:47pm PT
This is all about "thinning the herd".

60 Trillion in future unfunded liabilities.

Dead people can't collect medicare or social security.


There's nothing new about this.

Progressives have been trying to off the "unusefull" since their beginnings at the turn of the last century with Margret Sanger and the eugenics movement.

Just back then they weren't old, just the wrong color or class.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 7, 2013 - 09:47pm PT
If your competitor finds a way to cut costs, you do too, or he puts you out of business.

That is such a bad and irrelevant analogy, especially when cast in the context of political philosophy, that I'm speechless and simply won't respond to it.

The basic questions I asked remain, and Norton's question is, I think, really pressing!
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 7, 2013 - 10:03pm PT
This is all about "thinning the herd".

60 Trillion in future unfunded liabilities.

Dead people can't collect medicare or social security.


There's nothing new about this.

Progressives have been trying to off the "unusefull" since their beginnings at the turn of the last century with Margret Sanger and the eugenics movement.

Uh oh, he's onto us. We want to provide healthcare to poor people in order to kill them off.

Curt
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 7, 2013 - 10:06pm PT
Do we REALLY want to become just another European socialist democracy?

Oh f*#k no. Why would we want to emulate countries with the best healthcare, highest standards of living and the most satisfied populations?

Curt
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 7, 2013 - 10:16pm PT
Why would we want to emulate countries with the best healthcare, highest standards of living and the most satisfied populations?

If you can even ask the question, and ask it that way, then there's no "answer" for you that you are going to "get."

And even if I agreed with your socialistic views, is Ocare or anything like it really "the way" we're gonna get there?

Answer: Well, yes or no, depending upon whether or not you see Ocare as the necessary step to a single-payer system or just an epic blunder along the way.

But, I guess we DID have to pass it to see what it all meant. And what we see it all meant is that for a larger group of Americans that were slated to be benefited by the law, the law is a disaster. Even the O-man himself is apologizing for the rat's nest of unintended consequences. And we don't even know the half of it yet!
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Nov 7, 2013 - 10:24pm PT
If you can even ask the question, and ask it that way, then there's no "answer" for you that you are going to "get."

And even if I agreed with your socialistic views, is Ocare or anything like it really "the way" we're gonna get there?

Your post asked if we wanted to become a "socialist democracy" but the USA already is one. The definition of socialism is taxing and spending those revenues for the common good--you know, for things like roads, the military, schools, etc. Why conservatives get their panties in such a huge bunch over treating medical care the same way is beyond me.

Agreed that Obamacare is not the best solution, but there is absolutely no way we could have moved directly to a single-payer system.

Curt
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 7, 2013 - 10:30pm PT
Actually, Hitler was a Fascist not a Socialist. And not all slippery-slope arguments are fallacious, just like not all generalizations are hasty ones.

Our country was founded on a particular political philosophy, and it was fundamentally libertarian rather than communitarian. The "gimme!" sea change that has been taking place at an ever-increasing pace IS fueling a fundamental shift in political philosophy in this nation, and it's not "scare tactics" when essentially half of the people in this nation want NO part of this shift!

And when the proportion of communitarians in this nation reaches the majority enough to actually make the sorts of changes that Ocare represent, then, my friend, it is NOT "scare tactics" to say that the Founders would have called that "majority faction," denounced it, and called it grounds for revolution.

We are on opposite sides of the pressing question: WHAT sort of nation are we? I, at least, have the Founders on my side. The burden of proof is on YOU to show why your communitarianism/socialism is superior to what the Founders set up. And "taking from the 'rich' to give to the 'poor'" in ANY sense would have been roundly denounced by our Founders (and I can cite passages, if you wish).

So, prove that we NEED the sort of sea change you advocate; and prove that the likes of Ocare laws are approaches that are good ways to get us there.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 7, 2013 - 10:34pm PT
The definition of socialism is taxing and spending those revenues for the common good--you know, for things like roads, the military, schools, etc.

In political philosophical circles, your definition is non-standard. And even our Constitution was written to severely limit the powers of the FEDERAL government (you are seemingly conflating all sorts of layers of governments in this nation) to engage in even the sorts of "public works" projects you define as socialistic PRECISELY because our Founders (federalist AND anti-federalist) wanted NO part of a FEDERAL government with the power to tax AS wealth-redistribution. And this wealth-redistribution at the FEDERAL level just is "socialism" on a scale and by an entity that our Founders utterly rejected.
michelle0607

climber
Nov 7, 2013 - 10:34pm PT
Madbolter--- Amen.

I am mostly a lurker here, but I wanted to put some real-world numbers to a similar situation.

I am a mid-thirties single mom with a child with special education needs. I worked my butt off in college, ended up with a hefty six figure student loan bill, and eventually landed a great job (too high paying to get subsidies )

My current individual+1 plan through BC/BS will be not be renewed. It is $290 per month, ~$5,000 deductible and pays 80% of hospital/medical after that. It does not cover maternity (I don't have a uterus) or mental health (if needed is covered by my ex as part of a court judgement).

The cheapest plan I can get on Obamacare is $593 per month, $12,000 deductible and pays 60% hospital/medical after that. It also pays for maternity and mental health-- services I will never need to pay for.

In my situation, this increase in premium means that I can either
a) stop paying for my son's educational therapy (not covered by any insurance anywhere) and turn off the electric or
b) default on some of my student loans or
c) pay the fine and go uninsured.

I simply can't dream up $300 extra money every month, let alone save for the higher deductible.

The "Affordable" part is a joke.







madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Nov 7, 2013 - 10:44pm PT
but did they even talk about, much less pass, their own version of healthcare?

You ask this question as if (from our current perspective) that SHOULD have been some top priority back in 00-06. But why should it have been?

Under a certain political model (namely, the one our Founders envisioned), the FEDS were never, ever supposed to inject themselves into our individual lives like is now commonplace. So, it makes sense that ADDING to federal invasiveness (like Ocare now CLEARLY does) would be the last thing the Repubs would have on their agenda.

It seems to me that you question itself begs the question.

Perhaps the fact that millions of Americans were uninsured was simply NO PROBLEM that our Founders had any intention that the FEDS would ever do anything about. (Again, happy to cite some passages, if desired; you know, been there and done that).

You envision a political philosophy sea change from how this country was designed. Fine, and you are almost at the needed number of people to help you accomplish it. Thus, more and more, you'll have the force of "the people" behind you.

But our Founders recognized a CLEAR moral distinction in a democracy between what you CAN do and what you have a moral right to do, because they held certain principles of individuality and liberty as "inalienable." When ANY majority violates those basic moral principles, it becomes a faction, and that minority is then not only right but duty-bound to revolt.

Asked: "If government can do this, then what can government not do?" And answered: "Government CAN do this."

Tell my employees that what they are facing with Ocare is just "scare tactics" that they should brush off and just lock-step follow along into genuine socialism where the nanny state always knows best how to care for you.

No, what you'll see instead is tens and tens of millions of Americans that are starting to wake up to the FACT that there were very good reasons why our Founders didn't want the Feds engaged with individuals at this level!
Messages 361 - 380 of total 1450 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews