Obamacare a glimpse in the future

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by GBBob

If you want to promote a society where if you can't pay then you don't get treated, then so be it, but I hope that never happens. There are a lot of legitimate discussions you can have on funding and whether the haves should be supporting the have nots, but as a human being I don't know how you could turn your head to someone in need, regardless of their ability to pay. Of course there are abusers and there are parts of the health care system that are corrupt and rotten, but I don't know how the supposed leading country in the World can have health care based on an ability to pay.

There should be SOME safety net, yes, but unfortunately whenever the government does get involved and subsidizes a given industry, the abuse expands. There's no way to effectively distinguish those who cannot pay (the whole amount) versus those who don't WANT to pay the amount.

Riot made me laugh saying "Now people can pay for insurance." Oh yeah? You mean the subsidized cost. It always costs the taxpayers more and more, and to give the needy more means to give the productive less.

I wonder how many people who support ObamaCare would be charged up about it if we added one minor change:

If you've EVER bought a pack of cigarettes (which will now be tracked with your ID) you are exempted from treatment for the following conditions: lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease, peripheral artery disease, coronary artery disease, and whatever other smoking related illnesses where a valid causal or statistical link can be verified.

That would certainly keep costs way down.

Because, like it or not, it's not the Wall Street Bankers and stock brokers buying the majority of those cigarettes. Go to a casino and look at who's doing the majority of the smoking, with the costs of their treatment to be passed on to you at a later date.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Riot made me laugh saying "Now people can pay for insurance." Oh yeah? You mean the subsidized cost. It always costs the taxpayers more and more, and to give the needy more means to give the productive less.

No. That is NOT what we are talking about. That is what you are uneducated about. You imply or perhaps wrongly think that 100% of those newly getting insurance - the 30 million - will be taxpayer supported. That's not true. It's NOT TRUE.

Most will be self-pay and purchase their own insurance without any subsidy, due to new availability for purchase on exchanges. Most of those people are only not currently insured because insurance companies don't want to bother to insure them. Not because they are on Medicaid, or are poor, or don't have the money to buy a normal amount of insurance.

And what do you think about the millions in Medicare waste that are eliminated by the PPACA?

The PPACA is not "socialized medicine", nor is it huge new taxpayers subsidies. It is insurance reform of the private insurance industry.

You make me laugh when you repeat talking points, that the facts don't support. Why don't you go look up the costs of the PPACA? And where the funding comes from? Tell me the increase in costs to taxpayers? It's clearly outlined, and the CBO has addressed it in detail. So those figures on the costs of the PPACA are very easy to obtain. Because you are clearly seriously uninformed about "what the taxpayers are paying for" with it. There is no increase in taxpayer payment. Period.

It's nice to keep repeating an argument about concern for taxpayers, but not when it's false. The PPACA is no giant givaway of health care to "needy". These blatent falsehoods about the PPACA keep being perpetuated, and it has to stop.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by joeydb

There should be SOME safety net, yes, but unfortunately whenever the government does get involved and subsidizes a given industry, the abuse expands. There's no way to effectively distinguish those who cannot pay (the whole amount) versus those who don't WANT to pay the amount.

Riot made me laugh saying "Now people can pay for insurance." Oh yeah? You mean the subsidized cost. It always costs the taxpayers more and more, and to give the needy more means to give the productive less.

I wonder how many people who support ObamaCare would be charged up about it if we added one minor change:

If you've EVER bought a pack of cigarettes (which will now be tracked with your ID) you are exempted from treatment for the following conditions: lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease, peripheral artery disease, coronary artery disease, and whatever other smoking related illnesses where a valid causal or statistical link can be verified.

That would certainly keep costs way down.

Because, like it or not, it's not the Wall Street Bankers and stock brokers buying the majority of those cigarettes. Go to a casino and look at who's doing the majority of the smoking, with the costs of their treatment to be passed on to you at a later date.

I absolutely agree that someone should have ownership of their health issues if they are ignorant in eating, drinking or smoking habits. That is why I find it so ironic when Michelle Obama takes so much grief for her efforts to promote healthy eating, exercise and educating youth ( and sadly, parents) about these topics. It DOES piss me off when I see a 300 lb person in a motorized scooter puffing on a cig knowing that I very likely could be funding some part of their healthcare down the road down the road. But I'm not quite at the "let 'em die" phase yet

[Riot]

Originally Posted by GBBob

I absolutely agree that someone should have ownership of their health issues if they are ignorant in eating, drinking or smoking habits. That is why I find it so ironic when Michelle Obama takes so much grief for her efforts to promote healthy eating, exercise and educating youth ( and sadly, parents) about these topics. It DOES piss me off when I see a 300 lb person in a motorized scooter puffing on a cig knowing that I very likely could be funding some part of their healthcare down the road down the road. But I'm not quite at the "let 'em die" phase yet

But we are at the, "start to pay for your own healthcare so we no longer have to" stage with the PPACA, and that's a good thing.

Yes, the attacks on Michelle Obama for trying to get kids to eat right and exercise are beyond absurd and silly. It would be like attacking Lady Bird Johnson for environmental issues, or Nancy Reagan for trying to eliminate drug abuse.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Riot

But we are at the, "start to pay for your own healthcare so we no longer have to" stage with the PPACA, and that's a good thing.

Yes, the attacks on Michelle Obama for trying to get kids to eat right and exercise are beyond absurd and silly. It would be like attacking Lady Bird Johnson for environmental issues, or Nancy Reagan for trying to eliminate drug abuse.

I agree that it is society's responsibility to educate folks on healthy living, with more exercise and balanced diets we could virtually eliminate obesity (except for genetic and physiological causes), if folks stopped smoking and drank only in moderation, refrained from using addictive drugs, health care costs would drop drastically...these are goals and hopefully over time we can actually reach most...but, a moral society cannot legislate who deserves medical care and who does not based on lifestyle. We cannot adopt the concept that we can judge one life worthy and one not, when folks need help. we should help them not because they deserve it but because they need it!

[dellinger63]

we have 7 times their population and we're going to somehow handle the influx of newly insured patients many of who are subsidized by presently insured patients? Don't think so and this is a catastrophe in the planning. 18 weeks times 7 is just over a year but thank god Egypt and Pakisan are getting aid.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/20...g-times-longer

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

we have 7 times their population and we're going to somehow handle the influx of newly insured patients many of who are subsidized by presently insured patients?

It's a shame that, months after this law was passed, you still have apparently deliberately not bothered to learn what it actually contains, in favor of made up assumptions.

First, the statement above is false. The majority of patients won't be "subsidized" by anyone but their own money. They will no longer be subsided by you and I, as they are right now.

Is this really too hard for you to understand? That private patients will be purchasing health insurance from private insurance companies? And getting health care from whatever private doctors those insurance companies allow, just like now?

Secondly, the population of other countries has nothing to do with our population, or our doctor-patient ratios.

Third, those "newly insured patients" are currently getting health care in our ER's. It will be nice to both get them off my (and your) dime, and get them out of the ER.

Fourth, if we need more internists, we will make them. That isn't very difficult.

Fifth, are you really making the argument that people shouldn't be able to purchase their own health insurance and get health care in this country, because we have a limit on how much health care we will give in this country? And once we reach some quota, everyone else is shine out of luck? What is that limit? Who set it? It's an absurdly silly argument.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

First, the statement above is false. The majority of patients won't be "subsidized" by anyone but their own money. They will no longer be subsided by you and I.

Secondly, the population of other countries has nothing to do with our population, or our doctor-patient ratios.

Third, those "newly insured patients" are currently getting health care in our ER's. It will be nice to both get them off my (and your) dime, and get them out of the ER.

Fourth, if we need more internists, we will make them. That isn't very difficult.

Fifth, you are making the argument that people shouldn't be able to purchase their own health insurance because we have a limit on how much health care we will give in this country? And once we reach the quota, everyone else is shine out of luck? What is that limit? Who set it? It's an absurdly silly argument.

No one statement, take subsidies out of it and get it done. Unhealthy people pay more for health insurance as risky drivers do for car insurance. My premiums aren't inflated for teen age drivers on my auto insurance and my health insurance shouldn't be inflated for riskier patients.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OId8ByO4jg