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.
A personal anecdote, which of course is meaningless:
Title filed under) over their life.
True, this woman's health insurance is being subsidized, but I imagine that the cost of such is much less than if she were on disability.
I agree with your observation. Something which the people who cannot look at the bigger picture fail to see.
Most of the people who respond to threads like these lack that.
Thank our Democrats who have a lawyer lobby that prevents tort reform, so doctor have to pass on the costs of ridiculous liability insurance payments and massive costs of government over-regulation.
People under socialism are not aware of the massive value added taxes they live under. They pay through their noses for insurance.
In 2003 over 70,000 Europeans died from heat related causes. Can't afford that AC.
You should watch Hot Coffee sometime. Tort Reform is not what you seem to think it is. If a Doctor injured me while I was under Anesthesia requiring significant costs and disabilities now new to me, should I have to bear my new costs just to live because my state decided that maximum damages to be less than a small number?
You should watch Hot Coffee sometime. Tort Reform is not what you seem to think it is. If a Doctor injured me while I was under Anesthesia requiring significant costs and disabilities now new to me, should I have to bear my new costs just to live because my state decided that maximum damages to be less than a small number?
Moreover, research has shown that in states that have capped awards, there was no significant difference in the change of insurance premium costs compared to states that did not cap awards.
I agree, if someone causes you injury that now makes you disabled, they should rightly bear the cost of your welfare.
And looking closer at how those countries tax income, Scandinavian countries apply their top marginal income tax rate to the middle class, while the U.S. top marginal tax rate only applies to the top 1%:
Want national healthcare? Step up to the plate and PAY for it. I'll believe Dem politicians and voters are serious about implementing national healthcare as soon as they sponsor, support, and pass tax law that switches our country's progressive tax system to a regressive tax system like every other first world nation has. Implement a 20-25% VAT. Implement taxing the middle class at the highest marginal income tax rate. Until then, they're just waging class warfare and low-info lefty suckers are falling for it.
Dem elite Gruber was correct... "stupid American voter." /SMH
Last edited by InformedConsent; 01-07-2016 at 07:24 AM..
You misunderstood. Taking away the ACA will decrease the number of people covered by insurance.
That's incorrect. The ACA decreased the number of people covered by insurance.
All Obamacare did was force those with existing insurance onto more expensive plans, and add 12.6 million people to Medicaid, paid for not by them but by guess who? All those middle class Americans who are paying through the nose for Obamacare they can't afford to use and who also pay federal income tax on top of that.
Quote:
"The RAND study estimates 11.2 million Americans are insured through new state and federal marketplaces created under the Affordable Care Act, including 4.1 million who are newly covered and 7.1 million people who transitioned to marketplace plans from another source of coverage.
In addition, among the 12.6 million Americans newly enrolled in Medicaid, 6.5 million were previously uninsured and 6.1 million were previously insured."
So, what Obamacare did was newly insure only 4.1 million people on plans for which they pay (with many of them getting subsidies), while removing 6.1 million from paid insurance plans and placing them on Medicaid (for which they don't pay). It's a net LOSS of those paying into the system to spread the expense and make insurance more affordable for all. That's why those who have it are complaining they can't afford to use it.
And looking closer at how those countries tax income, Scandinavian countries apply their top marginal income tax rate to the middle class, while the U.S. top marginal tax rate only applies to the top 1%:
Want national healthcare? Step up to the plate and PAY for it. I'll believe Dem politicians and voters are serious about implementing national healthcare as soon as they and sponsor, support, and pass tax law that switches our country's progressive tax system to a regressive tax system like every other first world nation has. Implement a 20-25% VAT. Implement taxing the middle class at the highest marginal income tax rate. Until then, they're just waging class warfare and low-info lefty suckers are falling for it.
Dem elite Gruber was correct... "stupid American voter." /SMH
We've been down this road before. Your claim has been undercut but you repeat it anyway because you have nothing else.
With social security disability, she would have had government insurance previously, and then chose to make use of the ER.
Moving to private care, thereby making her healthier, is a goal many should have, but most people under ACA benefited due to an expansion of Medicaid, thereby increasing the number of people who used the ER for treatment.
Your example is proof that government actually is the wrong place for insurance, because people who are on those policies, abuse it, and use the most expensive, and inefficient method available to them because they dont care.
I am not sure of the meaning of your first sentence: "With social security disability, she would have had government insurance previously, and then chose to make use of the ER".
You may have been thinking that, if she were 'insured' for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, then it may be safely assumed that she had worked previously, and perhaps had insurance through her employer.
I do not recall if she was insured for Title II benefits, or if she filed under Title XVI for supplemental security income benefits (as well as Medicare), or both.
Regardless, she did not have 'government insurance' (I assume you mean Medicare or Medicaid) prior to filing for disability. Hence, the ER visits.
As for your second sentence, Texas did not expand Medicaid coverage. I do not think that those who begin receiving Medicaid coverage increase their visits to the ER. I am not sure where you got that idea. It can be a problem, of course, for those whom live in an area where most doctors do not accept Medicaid patients.
Your encompassing third sentence certainly did not apply to my one example. The woman in question began to see a medical doctor at a private clinic, and then not return to the ER (although she may have if she were in crisis and the clinic was closed).
Nevertheless, I agree that many of those who have no health insurance of any type 'don't care' about the expense, to taxpayers, of going to the county emergency room.
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.
