Obamacare discussion - Was it as success or failure? (Iraq, school, compare)
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.
I choose to exercise, eat very healthy, not smoke or do drugs, and take care of myself. I'm rewarded by paying out my a** for someone else that does none of the following? Obamacare is a bandaid on an open heart surgery. America is morbidly obese and the ones causing the majority of the problems. They should tax junk food and overweight people. If you want to eat like crap then pay extra money for it. If you choose to live an unhealthy lifestyle then pay for it too. I bet that will help motivate people to be healthier! I already hear the comeback "for some people it's a medical condition!" Yeah it sure is, but 99% of the people choose to be unhealthy and they should pay for it.
Obamacare in it's current form is not sustainable. People who are sick and truly deserve it should get it, unfortunately the majority do not deserve it.
Seriously why don't we tax junk food?
It is true that if people exercised and ate a better diet that some heart disease and other maladies could be avoided. However, the reality is you are simply postponing your turn with the Grim Reaper, you aren't avoiding it. Even people who exercise regularly and eat a healthy diet become sick. Its simply a game of averages. In fact, you could argue that healthy people may end up costing the health care system more over time. Unhealthy people may die young from heart attacks and strokes, thus ending their drain of health care resources. Healthy people may linger for years with conditions like Alzheimer's Disease, Dementia, and Rheumatoid Arthritis requiring regular medical care for decades.
The point is even if you are some wonderful example of physical fitness, there is no guarantee you won't develop cancer, heart disease, or diabetes. Its happened to famous athletes. A bad genetic history can be more important in terms of causing you disease than all your personal habits. Winston Churchill lived to be 91 years old. Many people don't know that he also smoke, drank to the point where some considered him an alcoholic, was fat, and had a high stress job as British Prime Minister during World War II.
I really hope you don't believe that most health care could be avoided if people would "just eat right and exercise". Its not true.
Perhaps, you'd care to share your age with us? Many young people don't seem to understand that as they age their bodies will inevitably decline and result in a need for more medical care. I went through this. From about age 20 to 40, I needed precious little medical care. Starting in my 40's, that picture changed.
Hillary will win the election and make changes to Obamacare.
Republicans will simply play the Obstructionist card. Nothing new here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tailsock
I think it's a disaster personally
Were you perchance formerly in the under-insuring individual market? It seems like after Limbaugh-listeners, that's where the highest percentage of anti-PPACA grousing is coming from.
No, I've never worked in the health insurance field or any adjacent industry.
But I don't see why you would think that "single payer" would result in lower total aggregate expenditures.
If we do a thought experiment where, with the snap of your fingers, we had single-payer, what would be different?
* The number of patients would be the same
* The number of doctors and medical care facilities (e.g., imaging centers, surgicenters, etc etc etc) would remain the same in the short run (recall you said single payer would drive down costs in the short run)
* Overhead costs of healthcare service providers would remain the same
* Covered procedures would remain the same
* Overhead costs of insurance companies would go away, to be replaced by
* Overhead costs of a new Single Payer government entity
Would new overhead costs be lower than old overhead costs? I don't think there is a compelling reason to think so. It is certainly possible that overhead costs will go up, because we're talking about a new government bureaucracy. Moreover, there would be a substantial learning curve where the new bureaucracy is not efficient and makes numerous mistakes in the short run that would require rework.
They are much less overhead than any private insurance company. Private health insurance companies have not been able to prove they provide any value added services, improve health outcomes, or save money. The competition model does not appear to work in this industry. It is a shame that it doesn't.
No, in the real world, they are not. Like Social Security, Obamacare will need on-going tinkering and re-balancing to keep it in line over the years with changing conditions and demographics. You might as well call the Constitution a failure because we added some amendments to it.
I laugh at those who deny the need for exactly what you are describing, as if almost anything significant they did in their lives started out perfect from the beginning. Man rarely creates perfection first time around.
I choose to exercise, eat very healthy, not smoke or do drugs, and take care of myself. I'm rewarded by paying out my a** for someone else that does none of the following? Obamacare is a bandaid on an open heart surgery. America is morbidly obese and the ones causing the majority of the problems. They should tax junk food and overweight people. If you want to eat like crap then pay extra money for it. If you choose to live an unhealthy lifestyle then pay for it too. I bet that will help motivate people to be healthier! I already hear the comeback "for some people it's a medical condition!" Yeah it sure is, but 99% of the people choose to be unhealthy and they should pay for it.
Obamacare in it's current form is not sustainable. People who are sick and truly deserve it should get it, unfortunately the majority do not deserve it.
Seriously why don't we tax junk food?
Here's the problem with your superficial analysis:
About 5 years ago I was diagnosed with some heart issues. I said to both my GP and cardiologist: "Well, I guess I'm paying the price for all those Krispy Kreme donuts." They both responded with: "No, your heart condition is almost totally the result of inherited factors. Your diet had little or nothing to do with it."
And, toward the end of life, most people who do all the right things still suffer from significant health issues.
Furthermore, I simply don't believe you live the pristine lifestyle you think you do. Do you drink alcohol (I note you didn't mention that). Do you ski or participate in some other somewhat risky sport? When you drive do you speed? More than 1 in-marriage sex partner?
A colleague I used to work with lived as pristine a lifestyle as you could ask for. Significant heart issues at the age of 35.
Of course I don't know, but I'm guessing you want government to be more out of people's lives...until it involves YOUR dollars, at which point you suddenly want government more into people's lives.
They are much less overhead than any private insurance company. Private health insurance companies have not been able to prove they provide any value added services, improve health outcomes, or save money. The competition model does not appear to work in this industry. It is a shame that it doesn't.
When you run the healthcare industry through any of the standard competition models (e.g. Porter's Five Forces), it simply doesn't work. The competitive balance is heavily skewed towards suppliers which is why costs are so high. Other countries - even those with a private/insurance model - attempt to control costs by having government regulate in the public interest. The USA tends to regulate on behalf of special interests and actually protects suppliers from adverse competition. Needless to say, those suppliers spend millions in lobbying.
When you run the healthcare industry through any of the standard competition models (e.g. Porter's Five Forces), it simply doesn't work. The competitive balance is heavily skewed towards suppliers which is why costs are so high. Other countries - even those with a private/insurance model - attempt to control costs by having government regulate in the public interest. The USA tends to regulate on behalf of special interests and actually protects suppliers from adverse competition. Needless to say, those suppliers spend millions in lobbying.
Great point. I'm sure part of it is the US bending over to special interests, especially when you consider the job losses related to single-payer systems. The main problem I have with Obamacare, is some areas have only one provider and unless a person or a family wants to pay a penalty, they have to pay the cost due to no competition in the marketplace.
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.
