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.
Ani...sounded to me like he was providing proof that Canadians do indeed pay quite a bit for their 'free' health care.
Canadians may pay what you think is quite a bit but we pay far more and get far less in our system and we,not even those with insurance, had any guarantee that we'd be able to get our ailments attended to. Seems to me the Canadians as well as the rest of the free world are a lot smarter than we like to think we are.
Ani...sounded to me like he was providing proof that Canadians do indeed pay quite a bit for their 'free' health care.
We also pay taxes for healthcare--VA, Medicaid, Medicare, Indian Health. On top of it all hefty health insurance premiums from all. If one does not feel the pain the employer is.
First we can debate whether it could be done On a state level,as you say, fore pre-existing conditions. You eliminate those clauses without a mandate to accompany you are the making it okay for people to not have insurance and only getting it when they get sick. That's like saying you don't have to insure your car but if you crack it up on a Monday, then you can go out the following Tuesday and get insurance and no problem we'll fix Mondays accident. Makes no sense.
As for Cadillac plans. Cadillac plan provides for only 1 copay in many cases for a series of tests rather than a copay per test, as an example. It causes lots of abuse in the system with doctors often ordering many tests that may not really be necessary and the patient not caring because it doesn't cost them more. That raises the cost of care for everyone else. I certainly expect copay for every procedure or test run. The more I need the more I pay. Your upset about the few that will loose their Cadillac luxury plans, but your not concerned for the many that have NO plans whatsoever. So that a few lucky ones can keep it, your willing to say to the rest, the hell with you? There are trade offs to be made in a society.
None of this would be an issue mind you if we had a one payer system because we'd all in essence have all the coverage we'd need.
Is there something about my posts that indicates to you that I don't know what I am talking about, so need it further defined? What you wrote about pre-existing conditions does not even make sense to me and it didn't even address what I wrote: that eliminating discrimination by insurance companies for pre-existing conditions did not take 2000 pp. of legislation. SO I have no idea what the heck you are even rambling on about.
I am not talking about what you refer to as "Cadillac plans."
I expressed no concern whatsoever about what was included in the "luxury" policies that the IRS is going to fine with an excise tax.
My concern was with the audacity of this government that they would feel it is proper to add an excise tax onto an EMPLOYER's benefit package to their employees.
Healthcare insurance isn't a luxury. Of course, seeing as how it is going to cost most of us as much as a Porsche payment every month, maybe I should reconsider. It IS starting to look like a luxury -- even the crappy silver plans.
First we can debate whether it could be done On a state level,as you say, fore pre-existing conditions. You eliminate those clauses without a mandate to accompany you are the making it okay for people to not have insurance and only getting it when they get sick. That's like saying you don't have to insure your car but if you crack it up on a Monday, then you can go out the following Tuesday and get insurance and no problem we'll fix Mondays accident. Makes no sense.
As for Cadillac plans. Cadillac plan provides for only 1 copay in many cases for a series of tests rather than a copay per test, as an example. It causes lots of abuse in the system with doctors often ordering many tests that may not really be necessary and the patient not caring because it doesn't cost them more. That raises the cost of care for everyone else. I certainly expect copay for every procedure or test run. The more I need the more I pay. Your upset about the few that will loose their Cadillac luxury plans, but your not concerned for the many that have NO plans whatsoever. So that a few lucky ones can keep it, your willing to say to the rest, the hell with you? There are trade offs to be made in a society.
None of this would be an issue mind you if we had a one payer system because we'd all in essence have all the coverage we'd need.
Why won't you answer post 241? You all other ignorant because of what you say is not there, well now you are shown it is there...free....
Is there something about my posts that indicates to you that I don't know what I am talking about, so need it further defined? What you wrote about pre-existing conditions does not even make sense to me and it didn't even address what I wrote: that eliminating discrimination by insurance companies for pre-existing conditions did not take 2000 pp. of legislation. SO I have no idea what the heck you are even rambling on about.
I am not talking about what you refer to as "Cadillac plans."
I expressed no concern whatsoever about what was included in the "luxury" policies that the IRS is going to fine with an excise tax.
My concern was with the audacity of this government that they would feel it is proper to add an excise tax onto an EMPLOYER's benefit package to their employees.
Healthcare insurance isn't a luxury. Of course, seeing as how it is going to cost most of us as much as a Porsche payment every month, maybe I should reconsider. It IS starting to look like a luxury -- even the crappy silver plans.
IF you don't understand why just not discriminating against pre-existing conditions without pairing it with a mandate doesn't work I can't help you. I gave you a great analogy and its pretty much common sense.
It took 2,000 pages because our problem with the healthcare industry is far more than just one thing.. and in order to effect change that would, over the long term, slow the costs from rising you have to address them all... THAT is why the bill is so large.
Fixing only 1 leak when there are many doesn't mean that the water still won't leak out.. hence the problems with our healthcare system prior to the ACA.
Canadians may pay what you think is quite a bit but we pay far more and get far less in our system and we,not even those with insurance, had any guarantee that we'd be able to get our ailments attended to. Seems to me the Canadians as well as the rest of the free world are a lot smarter than we like to think we are.
The problem we have here is paying for things.
47% of the population now pay no federal taxes. They are welfare sinks.
A system like the Canadian or French ones would be paid for entirely by half the population in the US.
SO, you disagree with the links provieded that state exactally that? Not what is the links, but what the link says....
Or how are you going to spin this one?
Who is the ignorant one?
I have attached a screen shot of the actual web page with the FULL web address....
I'm not understanding here what you are trying to say.
Affordable and FREE healthcare - is that what you are saying it said ? ( I can't open your attachment).
Yes, it expanded the criteria for medicaid but only in those states that elected to do so.. but it didn't create FREE healthcare...
I'll repeat my original answer; anyone who believes that Obamacare is "FREE" healthcare is ignorant to the facts of the ACA... and that goes for both sides of the arguments.. for those that thought they were getting something for FREE and those that think the ACA is about giving others FREE healthcare...
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.