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.
Pretty easy question really. Obamacare was never really intended to lower health care costs (one of the biggest downsides of the American healthcare system). It was intended to provide healthcare to most of those who couldn't afford it.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,570 posts, read 81,167,557 times
Reputation: 57798
Quote:
Originally Posted by fordlover
Pretty easy question really. Obamacare was never really intended to lower health care costs (one of the biggest downsides of the American healthcare system). It was intended to provide healthcare to most of those who couldn't afford it.
And those of us that have good jobs with great medical benefits have to pay for it so our employers don't have to pay the "cadillac plan tax." We expected it and it's happening, for us effective 1/1/2014.
Pretty easy question really. Obamacare was never really intended to lower health care costs (one of the biggest downsides of the American healthcare system). It was intended to provide healthcare to most of those who couldn't afford it.
I would think it clearly will lower the cost of health care on average. And it may do pretty well overall. It has clearly limited the ability of insurance companies to take excess profits. And it may well provide great pressure to lower some costs.
Pretty easy question really. Obamacare was never really intended to lower health care costs (one of the biggest downsides of the American healthcare system). It was intended to provide healthcare to most of those who couldn't afford it.
what comodity has dropped in price? What are you paying for now that is at a lower cost than 10 years ago?
ACA was an attempt to control skyrocketing health care costs. How about we wait till the act goes into effect before we declare it a failure.
Pretty easy question really. Obamacare was never really intended to lower health care costs (one of the biggest downsides of the American healthcare system). It was intended to provide healthcare to most of those who couldn't afford it.
Obamacare will create a new class of uninsured; what's the solution to that?
I would think it clearly will lower the cost of health care on average. And it may do pretty well overall. It has clearly limited the ability of insurance companies to take excess profits. And it may well provide great pressure to lower some costs.
We shall see.
The average insurance profit is something like 3%..
And how will it lower the cost of health care? Will it be the new taxes? The new mandate to cover everyone with pre-existing condition? The new requirement to cover people up to age 26?
what comodity has dropped in price? What are you paying for now that is at a lower cost than 10 years ago?
ACA was an attempt to control skyrocketing health care costs. How about we wait till the act goes into effect before we declare it a failure.
The question that NOBODY wanted to address -- but it was the only question that mattered -- was WHY health care premiums are so expensive.
The Dems refused to discuss tort reform, due to their parasitic relationship with trial lawyers. The Republicans made mistakes of their own on health care as well.
But if you think that BigPharma, BigInsurance, and BigMedical sitting at a table with Obama was going to be a good thing for a consumer, well, that's just not the way it's going to work. At stake is 20% of our GDP, which is an embarrassing amount to spend on health care.
A great article to read is "Bitter Pill" in Time from back in May. The article is behind the paywall at Time, but it's worth a read at your local library. It's 20+ pages that will certainly raise your blood pressure.
The question that NOBODY wanted to address -- but it was the only question that mattered -- was WHY health care premiums are so expensive.
The Dems refused to discuss tort reform, due to their parasitic relationship with trial lawyers. The Republicans made mistakes of their own on health care as well.
But if you think that BigPharma, BigInsurance, and BigMedical sitting at a table with Obama was going to be a good thing for a consumer, well, that's just not the way it's going to work. At stake is 20% of our GDP, which is an embarrassing amount to spend on health care.
A great article to read is "Bitter Pill" in Time from back in May. The article is behind the paywall at Time, but it's worth a read at your local library. It's 20+ pages that will certainly raise your blood pressure.
Tort Reform is a Right Wing red herring. It simply does not get past the percent or two level. Actually here in NV it has probably gone too far. Basically here you have to be dead or half dead without a terribly guilty doctor or nobody will touch it. If the doctor screwed up and left you half crippled...tough...live with it. Attorney's will agree you have a good case and will be glad to pursue it if you put the 100 grand up front to launch the case.
And yes we should have gone single payer. But the votes were not there. So we make do.
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.
