Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because we all know it won't work out that way. Employers will drop coverage due to the mandate, then people will only get insurance when they need it, then drop and pay the cheaper fine. It's a disaster waiting to happen.
You comments give me the impression you don't know what you're talking about. Re-read the start of the discussion. Inform yourself. Don't be such a willing victim of the racist-right which is fueling the scare. I'll end by saying, if you're opposed to the healthcare reform, okay with me. Let's drop you from coverage and deny you medical care if you can't pay. Because each of us who are insured pays about $1,000 per year in additional costs to support the uninsured. Time to cull the herd. Let them fall between the cracks. Whether they die or not is not my concern. I have my insurance. I'll be okay.
every year thousands of americans are leaving the country to get health care abroad. just google americans going abroad for healthcare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita
You don't have to believe me, but could you explain where you are getting your information on people leaving America and going to Canda for health care? That is just not the case...
On a scale from 1 to 100, (1=left 100=right). IMO the Scandinavian system, is 25 and our current system is 75.
I'm not making the case that others' systems are better or worse. My beef is with the Obamacare individual mandate, which is a freedom of choice issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
I am not sure that the system would work at state level, because insurance companies are not restricted to states, but operate nation wide. The key idea was to make sure everyone pays into it and no one free-rides. That was designed to make it profitable for the insurance companies even if individual premiums are reduced
Are you referring to the system pre or post-Obamacare implementation? As of right now, yes, there are insurance companies that compete in multiple states, but they are not able to compete across state lines in the manner I suggested earlier. In fact, many of them create a specific state level corporation to comply with the state laws. Federal banks don't have to do this. There is no current mechanism for health insurance companies to compete in multiple states in the manner federal banks can. Also, I'm not concerned with insurance provider profitability, I want to see competitive choices for consumers. I could not care less if all for-profit insurance companies went out of business and this industry was covered by non-profits.
I understand the key idea of Obamacare. My point is they overreached to fit their goal. They should have balanced freedom of choice with their goal for universal coverage. Does freedom of choice not mean anything anymore? I guess not if the end justifies the means to some people.
If we remove the clause that all americans buy insurance, it will not be favorable for insurance companies either. in that case, sick customers would flood the insurance market and drive up costs, while young, healthy uninsured people would take their chances and not buy coverage, in what insurers worry would be a "death spiral" of rising costs. So its better if everyone buys insurance same like Car insurance.
The auto insurance argument is not a direct comparison. People aren't forced to by auto insurance by simply existing. They can choose not to buy a car, but there is no opt-out for Obamacare without paying a penalty.
Ask the millions in NYC who do not have or need auto insurance if they would be fine with an auto insurance federal mandate, even for people who don't drive.
Health care is a money making racket. I have been on both sides with and without. For the same operation on left eye (retinal detachment) without insuance it was $2,500. Two years later - with insurance and right eye (retinal detachment) it was $5,000. SAme doctor.
Ok miss know it all. Please explain to us what % of people who visit an ER under their own power ( not arrived by ambulance) are admitted to the ICU. If you dont know just say so , no need to come up with a pathetic number as we are all aware its quite a bit less then 15%.
Hospital emergency department care
-Number of emergency department visits: 123.8 million
-Emergency department visits per 100 persons: 41.4
-Number of emergency department visits resulting in hospital admission: 16.6 million
-Number of emergency department visits resulting in admission to critical care unit: 2.1 million
Ok miss know it all. Please explain to us what % of people who visit an ER under their own power ( not arrived by ambulance) are admitted to the ICU. If you dont know just say so , no need to come up with a pathetic number as we are all aware its quite a bit less then 15%.
I don't know the answer to that, but if you look at the link I provided about EMTALA, some of them are admitted to labor and delivery. I'm not sure admission to ICU would give us any useful information. Some have their broken bones set and go home, too. Is that not an emergency? Is needing stitches not an emergency?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita
Katiana,
Our granddaughter is a ER nurse. What you say is true, but in reality most ERS do treat anyone who walks in (yes with a cold even) This is just the way they work and there has to be a better way. I certainly do not have the answer.
every year thousands of americans are leaving the country to get health care abroad. just google americans going abroad for healthcare.
Well, I doubt many are going to Canada. India seems to be a popular destination these days. When I discussed how much my hip surgery cost here on CD, many people said I should have gone to India. Don't know if I would have trusted the Indian health care system, and I wanted my family around.
I'm not making the case that others' systems are better or worse. My beef is with the Obamacare individual mandate, which is a freedom of choice issue.
I am also not saying one is better than the other, I am just saying how the different systems lean left/right IMO.
Freedom of choise? Freedom to force others to pay for your care. That's a great freedom for the ones who get care on other people's dime, but it forces others to pay for your irresponsibility.
To me it is not freedom, when I know I will be paying for those who don't even care to pay for themselves. It is socialism implemented by corporations. The "freedom" to abuse free services was among the biggest weaknesses of the old system.
There is no perfect solution to the problem.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 03-27-2012 at 08:04 AM..
BTW, critical care IS the ICU. So 1.6% of ER visits result in an ICU admission. You should read the whole article about unreimbursed care. Here are a few sentences:
In 2000, emergency physicians reported that 61% of their bad debt was related to EMTALA mandated care. . . . .
Indigent care and uninsured care are often inappropriately lumped together as a catchall term for those individuals lacking insurance. Indigent care is a term that defines those individuals without health insurance who live below the federal poverty level that may or may not be employed. Some uninsured individuals are employed and have means well above the federal poverty level. They cannot technically be classified as indigent.
I am also not saying one is better than the other, I am just saying how the different systems lean left/right IMO.
Freedom of choise? Freedom to force others to pay for your care. That's a great freedom for the ones who get care on other people's dime, but it forces others to pay for your irresponsibility.
Fine, we can repeal EMTALA and you won't have to worry about that anymore. But don't force all of us to buy insurance just because a few force us to pay for their medical care due to a Reagan-era mandate. I've given options that resolve both your and my concerns without a mandate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
To me it is not freedom, when I know I will be paying for those who don't even care to pay for themselves. It is socialism implemented by corporations. The "freedom" to abuse free services was among the biggest weaknesses of the old system.
You can repeal EMTALA and avoid paying for those people. The "socialism implemented by corporations" is actually a government mandate by a Republican president (Reagan) and a Democratic Congress. I am against it. The "old system" is really only 25 years old.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
There is no perfect solution to the problem.
Exactly, which is why I prefer to be on the side of freedom of choice while fixing the cost and access issues.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
