Obamacare, 5 years from now (calculate, expenses, mortgage, paycheck)

[bxlefty23]

Originally Posted by cdelena

I have purchased high deductible insurance on the open market for over ten years and fully understand risk, rates, and the cost of medical procedures.

Too many think that having the government decide what is good for people is acceptable... I know my situation better than them or you and contend that most people will make better decisions for themselves.

Well said

[stevemorse]

Originally Posted by robertpasa

If you hate Obamacare, of course you're going to say it's going to continue to be a disaster. But consider this:

Suppose the website is working well in a few weeks. And I know people are mad about having to lose their insurance and buy new ones, or having to switch doctors. But after dealing with these annoyances, people will be settled again. Their premiums have gone up, but once you get used to the higher price, you will start forgetting about it. Also, fewer people have no insurance, because of the penalties.

In other words, is it possible that in 5 years people will think of the current dark time as a "bump" and Obamacare will just be a part of our lives. It's like going to the dentist: it's a horror, a pain, it costs too much, but afterwards it's like nothing happened.

Or do you see complete catastrophe if Obamacare is not changed?

sort of like the gas prices.

[campion]

Originally Posted by shaker281

But, like other posters have pointed out, we were on a collision course with disaster by ignoring the growing problem of sustainable, affordable health care policy. While the Democrat's plan may be flawed, it is far superior to no plan at all. Critics of the AHCA never seem to take into account the cost of doing nothing!

If a building is on fire, and the only wet thing you've got at hand is gasoline, would you throw the gasoline on the fire just to do something?

[xray731]

Originally Posted by detshen

The problem is far too many people have no insurance, or just the low level insurance, BUT when they get sick, or seriously injured, they go to the hospital and receive all the medical treatment they need. The costs of one illness or injury can be astronomical! The illness/injury may also mean an inability to work and earn money. The tax payers are on the hook for whatever bills these people can't afford to pay. People seem to forget about that fact, and all the tax money paying for people who have never been able to afford insurance going to the ER for basic health care, often waiting until a minor illness becomes a much more serious/expensive one.

They also forget about the people who can't get any insurance due to a preexisting condition. Many of these people have been unable to start their own businesses because they can't get health insurance any other way. The act has a lot of problems, but the old way was terrible.

I'll disagree on all counts here as I've been in the medical field for the past 35 years. Years ago most health insurance only paid for catastrophic situations. When you went to the doctor 30 years ago - you paid with a check or cash for the entire amount - there were no co-pays. Insurance was for hospitalization and at that time it would cover 80% and you paid 20%. After my children's births and gall bladder surgery - what the insurance didn't pay - I made monthly payments to the doctors and hospitals until the balance was paid and they were fine with that.

I've never seen anyone with no insurance not pay. They either have cash or we took a deposit and they paid monthly payments. The tax payers are on the hook for those having Medicaid and abusing it by going to the hospital for basic health care. If someone with no insurance needs hospitalization and can't pay - it's the hospital's loss and already figured in to what those with insurance pay.

The only good thing is insurance is available for those with pre existing conditions which could have been addressed with simple legislation.

Forcing someone who once had a minimal policy that they could afford with a $2500-$5000 deductible and forcing them to buy a policy at 2 to 3 times the cost with a $6500 - $10,000 deductible is not helping them and may have made things worse as they may not have the capital available to pay for hospitalization - so more will be turned over to collection agencies. They will still wait if they have a minor illness to go to the hospital when it becomes more serious.

The fact that the nation is still not on its feet and many young people can not find decent jobs negates the presumption that the young would buy more expensive insurance thereby helping to cover the more costly treatments for others. Add that to the fact that young adults can still be carried on their parent's policies until they are 26 has taken another big chunk of the young healthy adults from having to obtained the new ACA insurance.

Plus add the illegals getting amnesty - whether or not they qualify for the program doesn't matter because if they were allowed insurance most would be on Medicaid or else will go to the hospitals whether they can pay or not and again we're footing the bill.

This plan was not well thought out and even with your "tweeking" will lead this country further down the road to ruin.

[don1945]

Do I know if it is going to work or not ? No, but something has to be done because the "richest" nation in the world still has the worst health care system for the majority of our citizens. How can you hate a President and party who are trying in some way to address that problem ?

Earlier in this thread, I saw where someone referred to the GOP as the Party of Hate. That is exactly the truth. If they simply softened their approach, and came across as not such hard nosed opposers of everything , they would not be in such a bad position with the majority of people in America. They simply look like a group of rich old guys who got theirs and don't give a damn if anyone else is able to do well or not. That is why, even with all their money, they can't win an election to save them.

Some people are going to love the new healthcare program and some are going to hate it. But the question is, will it help a lot of people who are just not able to afford it by any other means ? I think it will.

Don

[CharleyMcGarley]

DNA testing (like 23 and me) will be mandatory - since Progs love Eugenics - gotta be sure those people with bad genes get "fixed up".

It's all for the public good!

[Meyerland]

It won't be a disaster and more people will have health care than do now. So that is the good thing.

Now for the bad news: we will get health care that is stretched thin and people will not be denied care but waitlisted.

When I lived in Canada with my infant, it took 6 months to find a pediatrician for my daughter. Every visit before that had to be at a free health clinic, sitting beside homeless people and extremely ill people. All of her immunizations were free and covered, but I had to go across town to get them. The homeless people spent a lot of time at clinics in the winter. They want to be warm.

I never was able to go to an OB/GYN, so I had all my female wellness visits with a regular doctor. I didn't have menses for years after my daughter, and he told me that was normal and did not do testing.

My daughter was prescribed antibiotics from a health clinic, which caused stained and chalky permanent teeth. Her dentist in the states said that he had not seen a case like that in at least a decade.

Oh yes...socialized medicine is great.

[topher5150]

"If there's a new way I'll be the first in line, but it better work this time"

[oregonwoodsmoke]

I hear from a lot of people on-line, on assorted forums, who genuinely believe that Obama care means that everyone gets completely free medical care. They really believe that.

I'm interested is seeing how those same people feel about it a year from now.

[Mircea]

As a reminder.....this is the Economics Forum.

Just thought I'd point that out.

Originally Posted by robertpasa

In other words, is it possible that in 5 years people will think of the current dark time as a "bump" and Obamacare will just be a part of our lives. It's like going to the dentist: it's a horror, a pain, it costs too much, but afterwards it's like nothing happened.

Or do you see complete catastrophe if Obamacare is not changed?

Explain...in Economics...how O-care has a positive economic impact.

Originally Posted by fairlaker

Republicans? No plan, no idea, no answer.

Healthcare is intra-State Commerce and has been since its inception.

Congress has no authority or power over intra-State Commerce.

The US Supreme Court stated that healthcare is intra-State Commerce.

Healthcare is intra-State Commerce and has been since its inception.

Congress has no authority or power over intra-State Commerce.

The US Supreme Court stated that healthcare is intra-State Commerce.

Healthcare is intra-State Commerce and has been since its inception.

Congress has no authority or power over intra-State Commerce.

The US Supreme Court stated that healthcare is intra-State Commerce.

I'm hoping I don't have repeat that 1,000 times for you to grasp the concept.

Originally Posted by fairlaker

But by leaving the details to Congress and tying as many major stakeholders as possible to the process,....

A stakeholder.....a single stakeholder.....

The American Hospital Association gave....

$779 Million to Obama for America 2008
$260 Million to DNC 2008
$428 Million to RNC 2008

Source: American Hospital Association Pac (2008 Election) - US Campaign Committees

Originally Posted by fairlaker

Obama succeeded where all others had failed, and we finally have a means to move away from all that bad.

Prove it.

Admit or deny the following....

"Amounts paid by an employer on account of premiums on insurance on the life of the employee...may not exceed five per cent of the employee’s annual salary or wages determined without the inclusion of insurance and pension benefits."

Source: War Labor Reports, Reports and Decisions of the National War Labor Board (Washington, D.C.: The Bureau of National Affairs, 4, 1943) LXIV.

Source: Office of Economic Stabilization, Regulations of the Part 4001 Relating to Wages and Salaries, Issued October 27, 1942; amended November 5 and November 30, 1942, Section 4001.1 (h) (2), War Labor Reports 4, XII.

Source: War Labor Reports, Reports and Decisions of the National War Labor Board, Section 1002.8, LXVIII.

Economic Analysis: Negative, due to the fact that it starts to limit access to health plan coverage to only those who are employed. Furthermore, as a fringe-benefit, it creates a situation where both the employer and employee agree that increasing or expanding health plan benefits is preferable to increasing wages or salaries, or providing other potential employee benefits. Finally, the potential tax revenues are lost, since wages are deferred to benefits.

Admit or deny....

Unions have the right negotiate fringe benefits on behalf of employees

Source: Inland Steel Co. v. National Labor Relations Board. United Steel Workers Of America, C.I.O., et al. v. National Labor Relations Board; United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

"...pension and retirement plans constitute part of the subject matter of compulsory collective bargaining under the Act."

September 23, 1948. Writ of Certiorari Granted January 17, 1949. 170 F.2d 247 (1948)

"Following the 1949 Inland Steel decision by the Supreme Court, pensions became a mandatory bargaining topic and the subject of nearly all collective negotiations."

Source: www.nber.org/chapters/c7131.pdf‎

Economic Analysis: The Inland Steel decision begins to further restrict or limit access to health plan coverage to only those who are employed. Additionally, group plans are not necessarily in the best economic interest of all, creating more losers than winners.

Admit or deny...

"Premiums paid by an employer on policies of group life insurance without cash surrender value covering the lives of his employees, or on policies of group health or accident insurance...do not constitute salary if such premiums are deductible by the employer under Section 23(a) of the IRS Code."

Source: Public Law 83-591, August 16, 1954; Internal Revenue Code of 1954, Section 106. For more information on the 1954 tax code.

Economic Analysis: The Inland Steel decision opens the flood-gates for insurance companies to enter the group health plan Market. The American Hospital Association's Blue Cross loses more than 70% of its Market Share. Unable to compete with Free Market insurance companies due to the fact that Blue Cross is locked into a "community rating scheme," the American Hospital Association lobbies Congress and the IRS for a change in the tax code, established in 1954 to punish insurance companies who can offer group plans and much lower rates than the American Hospital Association's Blue Cross can.

Additionally, the changes in the 1954 IRS Tax Code banned health insurance for employ-based benefits, relegating the plans to glorified fee-for-service plans. Effectively, a large series of cost controls where then removed from the healthcare system, which helped to drive up costs faster.

Admit or deny....

"Introduced by various House and Senate sponsors and subject to extensive hearings, the basic framework of part A began to reflect accommodations between the sponsors, the Administration and the American Hospital Association (AHA).

It ranged all the way from principles of institutional reimbursement, which has been pretty thoroughly already worked out in a general way for their own purposes between Blue Cross and the Hospital Association over a period of several years

The American Hospital Association has already nominated the Blue Cross organization for its membership, although some member hospitals will undoubtedly elect out of this arrangement. We have proceeded very far in the development of working arrangements with Blue Cross, although no formal approval as a fiscal intermediary has yet been given them."

Source: Report to Social Security Administration Staff on the Implementation of the Social Security Amendments of 1965, Robert M. Ball Commissioner, November 15, 1965

Economic Analysis: In its continued quest to gain monopoly control over the healthcare system in America, the American Hospital Association first interferes in the Free Market in 1933 by dictating minimum coverage and minimum fees for group plans to member-hospitals; in 1939, the American Hospital Association creates the "Out-of-Network" clause to punished Americans for using hospitals that were not members of the American Hospital Association, in an attempt stifle competition; during the period 1939-1946 the American Hospital Association lobbies the State legislatures --- since healthcare is intra-State Commerce and not Interstate Commerce --- for "enabling laws" to give the Blue Cross health insurance company an unfair advantage over its competitors...those actions all moved to create the problem of an healthcare system with access limited primarily to those who are employed.

The American Hospital Association heroically --- in an obvious act of pure selflessness -- volunteers its own insurance company ---- the Blue Cross --- to save America from the problem that it created.

Originally Posted by fairlaker

We simply cannot compete on a global plane with a health care system costing twice as much as what others are paying.

Admit or deny.....

Last update 25.10.11
Extracted on 06.01.13
Source of Data Eurostat
UNIT Euro per inhabitant
ICHA_HC Health care expenditure
ICHA_HP All providers of health care

Romania.......310.39
Germany....... 3,398.50
Switzerland....... 5,215.64
Norway....... 5,343.49
Luxembourg....... 5,438.46
United States....... 5,684.68


UNIT Euro per inhabitant
ICHA_HF General government

Romania....... 241.10
Germany .......2,537.44
United States....... 2,657.86
Switzerland .......3,114.60
Netherlands .......3,271.16
Denmark .......3,775.17
Luxembourg .......4,105.86
Norway .......4,195.13

UNIT Euro per inhabitant
ICHA_HF Private household out-of-pocket expenditure

Romania .......63.95
Germany....... 403.33
United States....... 697.13
Norway .......805.54
Switzerland....... 1,590.18


Source: Database EuroStat: The European Commission of the European Union.

Economic Analysis: The united States does not pay twice what others are paying.


Admit or deny....

"As personal income increases, people demand more and better goods and services, including health care. This means that holding other factors constant, as higher personal income increases the quantity and quality of care demanded, overall health care spending increases as well. GDP is a good indicator of the effect of increasing income on health care spending."

Source: United States Government General Accounting Office GAO-13-281 PPACA and the Long-Term Fiscal Outlook, page 33.

Economic Analysis: Healthcare spending in the US is consistent with the Laws of Economics with respect to demand for healthcare services increasing the costs of healthcare. Note that unlike other States, the demand for a particular type of healthcare service, namely elective cosmetic surgery is one of the primary drivers.
Admit or deny...




Let's go back to the EuroStat data from the European Commission of the European Union....

UNIT Euro per inhabitant
ICHA_HF General government

Germany .......2,537.44
United States....... 2,657.86

So, if Germany is spending $2 on social services related to health care for every $1 spent on health care, while the US spends $0.55..........

....then the total amount spent by

...Germany........is 7,611 per person
...US................is 4,068 per person

Originally Posted by fairlaker

Somebody needed to build an escape hatch and Obama did that.

A guillotine, not an escape hatch.

There are reasons why your healthcare system --- from the standpoint of economics, efficiency, cost and access ---- are a nightmare (although the actual services themselves are excellent to superior).

O-care does absolutely nothing to address the causes of the problems of your system. Obamacare does not address:

1] illegal hospital cartels that illegally collude to illegally fix prices;
2] the lack of healthcare competition in the Market;
3] coerced consumer transactions;
4] tax subsidies which expand health plan benefits;
5] the grotesque inefficiencies of the Hospital Model versus the Clinic Model; and
6] the over-use of technology.


Good luck with that...

Mircea