ObamaCare

[Phatscotty]

Not back for good, but I am here, so could not resist adding a bit to this thread again.

A few points you continue to miss Phattscotty, about cost -cutting:

#1. MAJOR tax payer savings -- Right now, children are fully covered, regardless of pre-existing conditions. Since children are automatically covered by Medicaid if they have serious health issues, this effectively gave insurance companies a "free pass". They could cover the rest of the family and simply drop the disabled child. Now, the Medicaid simply covers the co-pays and deductables. This is a SIGNIFICANT savings.

I disagree, 100%. This is due to the fact that the Health Care Reform bill adds 16,500 IRS agents to enforce it (that's over 300 per state). Taxpayers have to pay more for those agents alone, and their benefits, and reitrements, and construction on the new complexes, with roads to them, and heat and air etc, the whole shebang. We are talking billions here, and they haven't even been hired yet. The only reason that if we scrap health-care, the deficit will actually go up, is because of the lost taxation, which is going to pull 100's of billions out of an already stagnant private sector. Agree to disagree.

#2.No annual or lifetime limits to coverage. Again, companies used to be able to set limits, so that when someone got seriously ill or injured, no matter how long they had paid into the policy, the coverage would stop. Some people were able to get coverage by changing jobs, etc. Others would use all their assets and then wind up on taxpayer roles. Again, this represents a MAJOR cost-savings to taxpayers!

I really don't know what else to say here. more people being covered and covered longer costs more.

2. We HAVE socialized medicine right now. If you are poor enough, you get covered. IF you get seriously injured or sick, you get treated and, once every asset you have is taken, other patients wind up paying the rest of your bill through higher fees, etc. If you have kids who have any kind of disability and you make less than $250,000, they get covered, with the taxpayer fund picking up costs over and above what insurance won't pay. (nice deal for the insurance companies! They get the premiums and taxpayers bear the worst costs!

Not a very good reason to change a safety net into a hammock.

As a talk show personality noted, when "we'll be like CANADA!" is the worst threat anyone can find, its a pretty sad argument. Canada is not such a terrible place to live.

Wouldn't happen to be this guy by chance.....would it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5fOULPJFiM

You fail to consider population. Canada's system may be good for 38 million people, does that mean it will work the exact same for 310 million people? Also, Canada's system mainly works because they are neighbors with the USA. Canada can always, as they often do, send people to the USA, and pay for some or most or all or none. The premier of whatever province who was just in Miami getting healthcare comes to mind.

No matter how good your insurance coverage, no matter how long you have paid into the companies, all it takes is going 63 days without coverage and suddenly any new insurance you get won't cover ANY pre-existing conditions. ANYTHING ... and believe me, the company definition of "pre-existing conditions" includes just about everything down to a hang nail.

Luckily, there is overwhelming agreement from Congress, and the President here. Now, if they could just pass this into reality in an honest way... It's not an issue anymore, it will be fixed.

7. You talk of "limits" and "denials" of socialized medicine, but utterly ignore all the limits and denials by insurance companies... denials to people who have paid their premiums, often for years. ONE IN TEN americans is right now without coverage. If you look at the number of underinsured, that is, people who technically have insurance, but who have very high deductables and co-pays, then its even more. (my husbands old plant has insurance now that has a $3000 per person deductable!)

No I don't.

Curtailing research? PLEASE... the US government, we taxpayers subsidize most research right now. Companies will come up with the highly profitable stuff like Viagra, but jsut about anything truly groundbreaking is happening with US government sponsorship. (exceptions are very, very few!)

I like how you call the reality that we can't sell anything, whether it works or not, without going through the FDA....a "sponsor". Is the IRS a co-sponsor? Most products do not even make it through the FDA application process, cuz you need 500 mil just to be seen.

Contrast that with care in ANY OTHER industrialized, and even a few not-so-industrialized country and you find that we PAY MORE, get less.

yeah, through taxes!!!!! If you hate America and how it works so much, and if you love another country and how it works so much, I gotta ask, how lazy are you?

OH, and all this talk about "The American people" being against the new Health bill? The truth is its the Insurance companies who are against it, and they have lobbied long and hard to distort the truth and keep people from truly understanding the law.

Oh yeah, but the president is all about the truth....??? I will agree the insurance companies are against it, becuase it will wipe them out. I would be for my own survival as well, just for the record. ugh....sigh: player...

[Phatscotty]

I agree. There aren't nearly enough threads about this yet. I fully support the starting of another. Excellent points in your introduction, I might add.

Those won't last

[Woodruff]

If we should repeal "Socialized Healthcare" then we should repeal it ALL: No medicare, no medicaid, and limits on VA care where they cannot get any treatment or checkups UNLESS it's directly related to a WAR WOUND.

f*ck you. Seriously. f*ck you. You disgust me.

[PLAYER57832]

Not back for good, but I am here, so could not resist adding a bit to this thread again.

A few points you continue to miss Phattscotty, about cost -cutting:

#1. MAJOR tax payer savings -- Right now, children are fully covered, regardless of pre-existing conditions. Since children are automatically covered by Medicaid if they have serious health issues, this effectively gave insurance companies a "free pass". They could cover the rest of the family and simply drop the disabled child. Now, the Medicaid simply covers the co-pays and deductables. This is a SIGNIFICANT savings.

I disagree, 100%. This is due to the fact that the Health Care Reform bill adds 16,500 IRS agents to enforce it (that's over 300 per state). Taxpayers have to pay more for those agents alone, and their benefits, and reitrements, and construction on the new complexes, with roads to them, and heat and air etc, the whole shebang. We are talking billions here, and they haven't even been hired yet. The only reason that if we scrap health-care, the deficit will actually go up, is because of the lost taxation, which is going to pull 100's of billions out of an already stagnant private sector. Agree to disagree.

Your point is valid, but irrelevant to mine. I just listed several points of benefit. That so many kids are moved off IS a savings. The IRS agents are another issue.

That said, I can tell you that taxpayers are now paying almost as much for just my 2 sons as the base pay of an IRS agent. (taxpayers, not the insurance companies to whom we have paid for decades) They have a highly disabled cousin in our area who often has bills equaling 2-3 hundred thousand a year. I know of many, many, many kids in our area who are covered by Medicaid. Autism, etc are very prevalent here. (and just to clarify, my circumstances changed since I was last posting. Then my son was covered by private insurance. Now he is not. So what I said before was true and what I say now is also true) Excluding these kids was one way that the companies have been able to wrack up such huge profits. Now, as soon as my husband's work insurance kicks in, they will once again be fully covered by the private companies. So, while 300 agents may seem like a lot, there IS a great deal of taxpayer savings just for covering children.

#2.No annual or lifetime limits to coverage. Again, companies used to be able to set limits, so that when someone got seriously ill or injured, no matter how long they had paid into the policy, the coverage would stop. Some people were able to get coverage by changing jobs, etc. Others would use all their assets and then wind up on taxpayer roles. Again, this represents a MAJOR cost-savings to taxpayers!

I really don't know what else to say here. more people being covered and covered longer costs more.

The point is this bill is not an expansion of government as you have claimed. These people are covered by PRIVATE insurers instead of taxpayers instead of all taxpayers. That is the point. You almost seem to argue in favor of a public plan there. Private insurance will always cost more than public insurance, but the public plan was ousted. This plan puts insurers more on the footing to show either a real profit or not. Before, they "cheated", they made their rates artificially low by pushing anyone truly expensive onto taxpayers.

2. We HAVE socialized medicine right now. If you are poor enough, you get covered. IF you get seriously injured or sick, you get treated and, once every asset you have is taken, other patients wind up paying the rest of your bill through higher fees, etc. If you have kids who have any kind of disability and you make less than $250,000, they get covered, with the taxpayer fund picking up costs over and above what insurance won't pay. (nice deal for the insurance companies! They get the premiums and taxpayers bear the worst costs!

Not a very good reason to change a safety net into a hammock.

No, we need a true public plan, but all you Tea Partiers and corporate lobbiests made sure that was off the table.

Oh, and what we had before was a hammock. What we have now is a bigger hammock that does push out a few, but covers a good deal more overall than the old hammock. And, before long, it will stretch to cover even more. Note, I definitely think the plan needs improvement, but the Republican and "Tea Party" designated arguments are toward making things worse than they were before, not fixing anything. We need a true universal system.

As a talk show personality noted, when "we'll be like CANADA!" is the worst threat anyone can find, its a pretty sad argument. Canada is not such a terrible place to live.

Wouldn't happen to be this guy by chance.....would it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5fOULPJFiM

You fail to consider population. Canada's system may be good for 38 million people, does that mean it will work the exact same for 310 million people? Also, Canada's system mainly works because they are neighbors with the USA.

Link did not work, but probably.
Point is mute because Canada's system is nothing like anything considered here. The thing is that if the worst case you can find is Canada... that doomsday isn't such a terrible thing.

Canada can always, as they often do, send people to the USA, and pay for some or most or all or none. The premier of whatever province who was just in Miami getting healthcare comes to mind.

But we still will have our size. Again, you keep buying the industry argument that profit is what drives current research. In truth, profit is a great mover toward things like Viagra, but not to really ground-breaking research. That kind of research moves too slowly for industry, has too many "dead ends". You want to push of government research as "ineffective" the truth is that private research only seems more effective because it starts out so far ahead of what the government does. Its similar to the old saying that the guy who invented aspirin was a genius, but the guy who puts the candy coating on it is a millionaire. Millionaires are fine, but not when they eliminate the geniuses as "too expensive. Corporate American is EXACTLY that short-sighted.

No matter how good your insurance coverage, no matter how long you have paid into the companies, all it takes is going 63 days without coverage and suddenly any new insurance you get won't cover ANY pre-existing conditions. ANYTHING ... and believe me, the company definition of "pre-existing conditions" includes just about everything down to a hang nail.

Luckily, there is overwhelming agreement from Congress, and the President here. Now, if they could just pass this into reality in an honest way... It's not an issue anymore, it will be fixed.

It has been fixed Begins 2014. Unless the Republicans and Tea Partiers shoot down the insurance bill.

7. You talk of "limits" and "denials" of socialized medicine, but utterly ignore all the limits and denials by insurance companies... denials to people who have paid their premiums, often for years. ONE IN TEN americans is right now without coverage. If you look at the number of underinsured, that is, people who technically have insurance, but who have very high deductables and co-pays, then its even more. (my husbands old plant has insurance now that has a $3000 per person deductable!)

No I don't.

Curtailing research? PLEASE... the US government, we taxpayers subsidize most research right now. Companies will come up with the highly profitable stuff like Viagra, but jsut about anything truly groundbreaking is happening with US government sponsorship. (exceptions are very, very few!)

I like how you call the reality that we can't sell anything, whether it works or not, without going through the FDA....a "sponsor". Is the IRS a co-sponsor? Most products do not even make it through the FDA application process, cuz you need 500 mil just to be seen.

Show me where I referred to the FDA as a "sponsor"? The agency in charge of research is the NIH. The FDA IS a regulatory agency.

The FDA is imperfect, but that imperfection is a heavy slanting toward industry and too often away from safety, as seen by multitudes of recalls and lawsuits. Even so, we still have a very safe medical and inspection system, jut one that is too often too underfunded.

As for the fees, I don't know much about that aspect , but I think companies should pay for the cost of inspecting their goods. It is part of doing business. You pay for your own expenses. Sadly, that has not been the peradigm in the US lately, which is one reason we have such a huge deficit.

Finding out about NIH research is hard. They are, by law, forbidden from doing anything close to lobbying. They may work in Washington, but cannot even call up a congressperson and invite them over for a "look see", the congresspeople have to initiate any contact. Still, go to any medical research university and you find a lot of research funded by NIH.

Contrast that with care in ANY OTHER industrialized, and even a few not-so-industrialized country and you find that we PAY MORE, get less.

yeah, through taxes!!!!! If you hate America and how it works so much, and if you love another country and how it works so much, I gotta ask, how lazy are you?

Let's see, so you object to people "being forced" to buy insurance, nevermind that the rest of us see our taxes increased by all those who go without. Then you also complain above that insurance costs will go up, but ignore significant taxpayer savings (no, we are unlikely to see our taxes decreased because we have to pay off all the deficit, but downpaying the deficit IS a savings to us all). The bottom line is that you could care less about any reality. You dislike government simply because it IS government and dismiss any other paradigm.

And stop with the "hate America" garbage, because that's what it is. True patriots criticize America. People like you who want to go around waving flags and pointing to the constitution when its convenient, while undermining the very system of government,the power to the PEOPLE that makes our system great ( not monarchs and not corporations), are hypocrites.

I don't like our healthcare system. Almost no one with intelligence beyond a mite does. I also have experience with other systems, so I don't have to rely on industry dupe fright stories. You equating that with "being lazy" shows a distinct lack of attention to logic.

OH, and all this talk about "The American people" being against the new Health bill? The truth is its the Insurance companies who are against it, and they have lobbied long and hard to distort the truth and keep people from truly understanding the law.

Oh yeah, but the president is all about the truth....??? I will agree the insurance companies are against it, becuase it will wipe them out. I would be for my own survival as well, just for the record. ugh....sigh: player...

I don't listen to the president speeches to know about a bill. Or rather, I will listen to them, to congress, etc. BUT, I take all that with a "grain of salt" until I read the bill, listen to fact checkers, etc.

If the insurers are going to be forced out of business because they are finally required to actually provide insurance, then they should be run out. No violins from here. The REAL point is that they haven't truly been providing insurance to everyone, only a select few who they deem "profitable". Meanwhile, we taxpayers wind up paying for the rest. (as does society in huge losses in productivity, etc.).

[Phatscotty]

If Obamacare is such a good deal, why is he handing out executive waivers left and right to his buddies?

[Woodruff]

If Obamacare is such a good deal, why is he handing out executive waivers left and right to his buddies?

"Good for the American taxpayer" does not necessarily equate to "good for every particular group".

[Phatscotty]

If Obamacare is such a good deal, why is he handing out executive waivers left and right to his buddies?

"Good for the American taxpayer" does not necessarily equate to "good for every particular group".

okay, that would be relevant here, except for the groups getting the waiver are a group of "very rich" organizations.

[stahrgazer]

If we should repeal "Socialized Healthcare" then we should repeal it ALL: No medicare, no medicaid, and limits on VA care where they cannot get any treatment or checkups UNLESS it's directly related to a WAR WOUND.

f*ck you. Seriously. f*ck you. You disgust me.

Why? Because I think that "socialized healthcare" should be for all, not just a select few?

Or because I think Veteran's health benefits should relate to injuries during service if we're all to be "against socialized healthcare?"

So, I disgust you because I'm NOT a hypocrite? Great... because HYPOCRITES DISGUST ME.

Meanwhile your oh-so-not clever repartee added absolutely nothing to the discussion; I guess I could report you for it, but I won't.

[stahrgazer]

If the insurers are going to be forced out of business because they are finally required to actually provide insurance, then they should be run out. No violins from here. The REAL point is that they haven't truly been providing insurance to everyone, only a select few who they deem "profitable". Meanwhile, we taxpayers wind up paying for the rest. (as does society in huge losses in productivity, etc.).

Spot on!

Also, to digress to some of the arguments that "taxpayers will have to pay for more IRS agents to monitor," well.. at least that gives them J.O.B.S. instead of U.N.E.M.P.L.O.Y.M.E.N.T. (that taxpayers also have to pay for).

and to digress to a personal "uninsured" story.

Back in 1981, a year after we moved to Florida, I was home when my mother came crawling up the stairs to the door, moaning in pain-induced anguish. She'd gone to a hospital for whatever was wrong, but they took her blood pressure, and because it was fine, they sent her home - because she had no insurance.

She was pale, clammy, and.. never had complained of pain before. I called the hospital and threatened to sue because whatever it was HAD to be an emergency case, and that particular hospital's federal funding required them to accept emergency indigents.

They linked us to a (federally funded) clinic, who ushered us in within 15 minutes. Surgery for the tumor was the next morning at 8:00 a.m. A tumor the size of a basketball.

Mom lived for another 19 years before cancer took her.. and by then she was on "socialized" medicare.

The federal funding that used to take care of people like my mom, uninsured, with insufficient assets, have largely been eliminated between then and now.. until about 2014 when this new form of "socialized healthcare" will treat people who are not children and are not retired, who cannot afford to pay for insurance at private rates, and whose companies do not provide it.

Tell me again, the-woodruffs-of-this-site, why my mother shouldn't have got her operation to remove a tumor, but a child should get a vaccine, a senior should get a script or heart transplant, or a vet should be able to get a non-service-related hangnail removed... IF American's don't support "socialized healthcare."

[Woodruff]

If Obamacare is such a good deal, why is he handing out executive waivers left and right to his buddies?

"Good for the American taxpayer" does not necessarily equate to "good for every particular group".

okay, that would be relevant here, except for the groups getting the waiver are a group of "very rich" organizations.

That does not at all counter my point.

[Woodruff]

If we should repeal "Socialized Healthcare" then we should repeal it ALL: No medicare, no medicaid, and limits on VA care where they cannot get any treatment or checkups UNLESS it's directly related to a WAR WOUND.

f*ck you. Seriously. f*ck you. You disgust me.

Why? Because I think that "socialized healthcare" should be for all, not just a select few?

No.

Or because I think Veteran's health benefits should relate to injuries during service if we're all to be "against socialized healthcare?"

That you believe the only sort of injury individuals get while in the military are "war wounds" shows your ignorance. That you're so easily willing to discount all of those other types of injuries to withdrawal of medical care for them shows how disgusting you are in your ignorance.

So, I disgust you because I'm NOT a hypocrite?

No.

and to digress to a personal "uninsured" story.
Back in 1981, a year after we moved to Florida, I was home when my mother came crawling up the stairs to the door, moaning in pain-induced anguish. She'd gone to a hospital for whatever was wrong, but they took her blood pressure, and because it was fine, they sent her home - because she had no insurance.
She was pale, clammy, and.. never had complained of pain before. I called the hospital and threatened to sue because whatever it was HAD to be an emergency case, and that particular hospital's federal funding required them to accept emergency indigents.
They linked us to a (federally funded) clinic, who ushered us in within 15 minutes. Surgery for the tumor was the next morning at 8:00 a.m. A tumor the size of a basketball.
Mom lived for another 19 years before cancer took her.. and by then she was on "socialized" medicare.
The federal funding that used to take care of people like my mom, uninsured, with insufficient assets, have largely been eliminated between then and now.. until about 2014 when this new form of "socialized healthcare" will treat people who are not children and are not retired, who cannot afford to pay for insurance at private rates, and whose companies do not provide it.
Tell me again, the-woodruffs-of-this-site, why my mother shouldn't have got her operation to remove a tumor, but a child should get a vaccine, a senior should get a script or heart transplant, or a vet should be able to get a non-service-related hangnail removed... IF American's don't support "socialized healthcare."

The Woodruffs of the site? Displaying your ignorance again, stahrgazer? At least try not to be an utter moron, please. Good Lord, a very basic reading of my posts on this site should tell you what a dumbass reference that is. Your inability to think critically enough to recognize the differences between what you're talking about here and what I referred to above is astounding.

[Mr_Adams]

Also, to digress to some of the arguments that "taxpayers will have to pay for more IRS agents to monitor," well.. at least that gives them J.O.B.S. instead of U.N.E.M.P.L.O.Y.M.E.N.T. (that taxpayers also have to pay for).

GREAT! We are expanding the bureaucracy, giving jobs to people who don't actually PRODUCE anything! Thats just more CRAP to be paid for by TAXES. You know what it means to "tax" a system? tax-v- to make onerous and rigorous demands on (Webster's online dictionary). Ya, real nice. They are producing as much for society as the unemployed, but they are getting paid more to do it. BRAVO.

If we should repeal "Socialized Healthcare" then we should repeal it ALL: No medicare, no medicaid, and limits on VA care where they cannot get any treatment or checkups UNLESS it's directly related to a WAR WOUND.

f*ck you. Seriously. f*ck you. You disgust me.

Why? Because I think that "socialized healthcare" should be for all, not just a select few?

Or because I think Veteran's health benefits should relate to injuries during service if we're all to be "against socialized healthcare?"

So, I disgust you because I'm NOT a hypocrite? Great... because HYPOCRITES DISGUST ME.

Meanwhile your oh-so-not clever repartee added absolutely nothing to the discussion; I guess I could report you for it, but I won't.

Ok, nit-wits, lets go over this again. Health care for government employees is not "Socialized healthcare". It is Health Care provided for an employee by an employer. The problem is that the government has to many employees, and they are all paid to much, but that is a different discussion. Veterans were government employees as well. They have health benefits as part of a retirement package. FROM THIER EMPLOYER. Thier employer just happens to be the government.

[Timminz]

The irony of an American flying this avatar is highly enjoyable, to me.

[thegreekdog]

Who provides health insurance if the health insurance companies go out of business?

[Night Strike]

Who provides health insurance if the health insurance companies go out of business?

The government, which is what progressives want.