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.
If you think for one second this is going to change anyone's voting habits, think again. You need to understand the entire story and you need to live here to do that. Ask most doctors or health care professionals what this doing. Ask them how totally shocked these newly insured people are when they understand just how much is not covered or what their out of pocket expenses are compared to when they depended on simple medicare which many were on. Ask those who are choosing Obama care and want good coverage how much they are paying and ask the workers what has happened to their insurance rates? This isn't simply a matter of how many are now covered. We are now seeing doctors leave medicine because of Obama Care. 2 of my husbands doctors have left; one took an early retirement and one decided to go to work for the VA. So weigh both sides before you decide people should vote based on this.
Nita, I pay less for my insurance purchased through the ACA website than I paid before. I have better more comprehensive coverage, and my out-of-pocket is actually less. Because I went from United to Blue Cross I have a much larger pool of doctors to choose from.
I'm sorry, but in Arkansas, despite the ads you see on television, the reality is that the ACA has made good insurance more available to Arkansans.
So a couple of people are helped and millions are harmed..Great trade off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama
Even with the mandate, the lower uninsured rate is due mainly to Medicaid, not private insurance.
When we look at these kinds of numbers, the results can be misleading. There is a presumption that people being insured means that people are better off.
For instance, I have a friend in Georgia who said there was no point in him buying insurance because he rarely goes to the doctor and can easily pay out of pocket. That once Obamacare was put in place, he would basically have to pay something like $5,000 a year for health insurance.
The law was passed, he was forced to buy insurance, and now his name is added to the list of people who are now insured. The liberals will claim a victory, because they are "reducing the number of uninsured in this country". But was it a victory? And a victory for whom?
I don't believe that health outcomes are going to be improved by the new healthcare system. The United States already had the best overall quality of care in the world. That doesn't mean things aren't going to change.
Look at it like this, the mandate really just turns our healthcare system into the equivalent of social-security. Social-security is not a savings or retirement program like many believe. It is an insurance program. And it has always been an insurance program.
Social security is an insurance program where those who die earlier in life, pay for those who live longer. Just like health insurance means healthy people pay for the sick. Or car insurance means safe drivers pay for bad drivers. In the case of all insurance programs, there is no relationship between what you pay in and what you get out.
If you die the day before you can start collecting social-security. You won't see a dime. If you die randomly of a heart attack in your kitchen floor, your health insurance pays nothing. And if you drive your entire life and never get into an accident, your car insurance will pay out nothing for you.
Now, there is nothing wrong insurance. If you choose to buy insurance, that is your choice. But any time the government requires you to buy insurance, then it becomes just another form or wealth redistribution.
Look at it like this, in the case of social security. I hate it because... A) I'm a man, and my life expectancy is far shorter than a woman's life expectancy. Which means men overall pay a lot more into the system than they get out. B) My family has a variety of health problems. Mostly heart disease and cancer. High blood pressure and diabetes is very common in my family. The likelihood of me living to 65 is practically zero.
Which means, anything I pay into social security is nothing more than charity on my part. I rarely drive anywhere, and I am a supremely safe driver(everyone calls me a granny driver). Yet, I am forced to pay the same car insurance rates as everyone else. I also don't go to the doctor, basically ever. And I would probably die before I went, even if I was sick.
Basically, whatever I pay into a mandated social-security, health insurance, or car insurance, is really nothing more than a tax. Which is fine, but they should be calling it a tax rather than insurance. And if it is a tax, then I would prefer it not be a regressive tax. Which is what all insurance mandates are. Car insurance is probably the most regressive tax of them all.
In the case of car insurance. I would much rather they just added it to the cost of a gallon of gasoline. Then at least, someone who only drives maybe 2,000 miles a year, isn't paying the same as someone driving 15,000 miles a year. When the probability of a car accident is almost entirely related to total miles driven.
And at least in that way, the money isn't going to insurance corporations who pocket 20-30% of all the money paid into them(IE not going to claims).
If you want to reform the health insurance system, I say "Single payer or bust". Because what we have now is absolute garbage.
Time for a sticky entitled "ACA is a failure form the start; it does not help the nation"
Now lets talk about finally creating a system based on a template from the nations that have the most successful systems. Yes they are out there- do your research.
The solution is single-payer health care for basic and catastropic / emergency services. Specialization and everything else can remain private.
And healthcare covered for everyone under 18 with an extension easily available for those who need it most.
If we invest in the health of our children, we reap the benefits of a healthier work force down the road. Not to mention saving millions of dollars for other discretionary spending...like college.
Nita, I pay less for my insurance purchased through the ACA website than I paid before. I have better more comprehensive coverage, and my out-of-pocket is actually less. Because I went from United to Blue Cross I have a much larger pool of doctors to choose from.
I'm sorry, but in Arkansas, despite the ads you see on television, the reality is that the ACA has made good insurance more available to Arkansans.
So a couple of people are helped and millions are harmed..Great trade off.
How are they harmed? Because they have to get better health insurance? People without health insurance can die or go bankrupt under the old system. I would have no problem at all with people who opt out of health insurance altogether signing a contract that they will not use hospitals, therefore making other people pay for their health care. The old system sucked. That is why people wanted Obamacare. Did you notice any of those jerks in Congress offering to give up their great health insurance while they were trying to prevent others from obtaining it? The old health insurance market was in no way a free market as too many people were closed out of it. There was NO choice for many.
I qualified for a tiny subsidy at the beginning of the year, but raises have eliminated that. And even without a subsidy, my BlueCrossBlueShield policy provides me with more coverage for a lower cost than my previous United Healthcare policy.
The solution is single-payer health care for basic and catastropic / emergency services. Specialization and everything else can remain private.
What do you mean by specialization? My uncle had his leg amputated from diabetes and they sent him to a specialist for a prosthetic. Should he have to pay for that?
Outside of "cosmetic" crap. I say, either single payer for all, or nothing at all.
If government got completely out of healthcare, its cost would drop significantly. And if government completely took over all of healthcare, its cost would drop significantly.
We need to pick one or the other. What we are doing now, sucks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fancy-Schmancy
And healthcare covered for everyone under 18 with an extension easily available for those who need it most.
If we invest in the health of our children, we reap the benefits of a healthier work force down the road. Not to mention saving millions of dollars for other discretionary spending...like college.
Look, the health of our children quote is pretty idiotic. What is going to happen to "the children" if they aren't allotted free medical care? Or really, what is it that will supposedly make them more productive and more healthy by providing them free medical care?
The truth is, in 99.9% of cases, the kids who are going to be healthy as adults will be healthy as adults, period. The kids who would be less productive or less healthy as adults, in 99.9% of cases, if there was no free healthcare, they would simply die. There are very very very few medical conditions that are "fixed" through medical care.
In fact, you could probably make a better argument that letting the weak kids die would make society more productive and more healthy as a whole. Than spending billions giving surgeries and assistance to children with debilitating conditions like cerebral palsy.
Isn't that what Hitler was trying to do with Eugenics programs? Kill off the weak and let the strong breed like jackrabbits?
Trust me, 90% of children will make it to adulthood requiring nothing more than a few doses of antibiotics(~$5-$8 for generics at Walmart). Almost all of the remainder might need a cast for a broken limb, or stitches. Only a tiny fraction need anything beyond that.
I qualified for a tiny subsidy at the beginning of the year, but raises have eliminated that. And even without a subsidy, my BlueCrossBlueShield policy provides me with more coverage for a lower cost than my previous United Healthcare policy.
I was able to find a plan under ACA with similar coverage (Platinum) minus my current premium dental for a little less than Cobra would be for my premium plan with premium dental and vision including eye exam and $175/yr. for contacts or glasses with no deductible. If the rates stay the same it is a little peace of mind to know that is available to me when Cobra will run out after 18 months.
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.
