Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-21-2017, 10:37 PM
 
8,081 posts, read 6,959,794 times
Reputation: 7983

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ALackOfCreativity View Post
Depends on execution. There should be caps and controls because without that things can get ridiculous and a handful of ridiculous cases raises costs for everyone, but those caps and controls should be high enough that a medical malpractice lawsuit could still cover a lifetime of lost earnings of someone can't work and all the money they need to cover their continuing medical care needs. Which is a balance congress has been generally unable to strike. The problem is that Democrats see their job as supporting Democrat voting/donating tort attorneys and Republicans see their job as supporting Republican voting/donating surgeons and neither wants to do the right thing for the country as a whole.
One effective deterrent in AZ is requiring preliminary expert affidavits basically saying the case is legit. Because experts, especially medical expeets, are expensive, it makes Plaintiffs and Attorney's really consider their costs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-21-2017, 10:38 PM
 
26,680 posts, read 28,670,280 times
Reputation: 7943
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
What we had before sucked. Lifetime caps, no pre-existing conditions, children dropped off parents policies at 21 (when hopefully they are still in college), premiums were going up minimum 10% per year, etc
Yes, but that seems to be what the GOP preferred since all they did was talk about repealing the ACA with no replacement plan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2017, 12:20 AM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,889,092 times
Reputation: 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
What we had before sucked. Lifetime caps, no pre-existing conditions, children dropped off parents policies at 21 (when hopefully they are still in college), premiums were going up minimum 10% per year, etc
Yet, the first year with full Obamacare life expectancy in the USA dropped for the 1st time in 28 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2017, 12:47 AM
 
Location: Caverns measureless to man...
7,588 posts, read 6,628,754 times
Reputation: 17966
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
Yet, the first year with full Obamacare life expectancy in the USA dropped for the 1st time in 28 years.
Which clearly means that it is a totally irrelevant metric, because there is scarcely any conceivable way that anything that the ACA caused could possibly have any effect in such a short period of time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2017, 12:57 AM
 
5,730 posts, read 10,127,514 times
Reputation: 8052
Do what right?

Have tax dollars pay vs let the free market/competition lower costs?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2017, 01:37 AM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,889,092 times
Reputation: 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. In-Between View Post
Which clearly means that it is a totally irrelevant metric, because there is scarcely any conceivable way that anything that the ACA caused could possibly have any effect in such a short period of time.
Yet, liberals use life expectancy when arguing for more government involvement in healthcare.

The fact is there is no evidence that Americans are healthier due to Obamacare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2017, 08:23 AM
 
Location: The Ranch in Olam Haba
23,707 posts, read 30,749,085 times
Reputation: 9985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove View Post
Make no mistake. Medicare recipients DID NOT PAY FOR IT. They pay for about a third of the benefits they receive. Wait until Paul Ryan voucherizes them. Those are going to be some angry seniors. I'd feel bad but most are Trump supporters so they voted for it.

- Few seniors have actually paid for their Medicare benefits. According to an Urban Institute estimate, the typical retired couple paid $122,000 in lifetime Medicare taxes but can expect to receive benefits worth $387,000.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.327a321970f6
You may have wanted to read the tables within the report, before following the leanings of some journalist.

http://www.urban.org/sites/default/f...me--Update.PDF
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2017, 08:29 AM
 
22,923 posts, read 15,489,598 times
Reputation: 16962
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
Yet, liberals use life expectancy when arguing for more government involvement in healthcare.

The fact is there is no evidence that Americans are healthier due to Obamacare.
You would seriously use one year of it's existence to make an argument either for or against?

Given that EVERY other country with more government involvement than the U.S. over decades has higher life expectancies might have more merit as an argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2017, 09:06 AM
 
8,151 posts, read 3,676,088 times
Reputation: 2719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname View Post
Do what right?

Have tax dollars pay vs let the free market/competition lower costs?
Yeah, just one tiny problem - free market does not work for healthcare because most people are death-averse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2017, 09:15 AM
 
Location: Del Rio, TN
39,869 posts, read 26,508,031 times
Reputation: 25773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Silver lining is if penalty isn't enforced you can just go a non-compliant policy for less than half the cost. Probably what I'll do next year. Most on ACA don't care. If premiums go up, they just get more subsidy so it doesn't hurt them any.
I thought so too. Unfortunately, under the ACA, as far as I have been able to determine, "non-compliant" plans can no longer be sold. So the old "major medical" plan that covered major issues only and prevented you from going bankrupt if hit with a major disease or injury, and that you could get for $150-200 a month, cannot be sold any more. Obamacare made that option illegal (from what I have read-if different please provide a link). So you're stuck with an Obamacare plan, for twice the money and with poorer coverage and higher deductibles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:22 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top