Has anyone else seen this on ObamaCare

Crohn's Disease Forum

Help Support Crohn's Disease Forum:

G

GutlessWonder86

Joined
Jul 13, 2010
Messages
1,293
I found this information and wanted to know if anyone else saw this as well. And what their thoughts are on having someone other than their own MD make medical decisions that are in the patient's best interest. I'm reading #5.

Each person is unique and has different health issues. Who is the Secretary of Health to tell us what we can and can't have to keep us in remission you know?
 

Attachments

  • 311646_10150998904619800_1051668035_n.jpg
    311646_10150998904619800_1051668035_n.jpg
    68 KB
From some of the stories I have read on here I thought that insurance companies already had the power to deny prescribed treatment???
 
From what I've been reading in the news and from what the medical personnel have been telling us is this: under Obama Care pre-existing conditions will be covered but the gov't will decide if you are a high risk or not depending on your age, ailments, & if they are going to cost them $$$. Then they'll either say yes to getting the medical care you need or refuse treatment altogether.

That is why most Americans are against this because they don't want to be denied being treated for their illnesses and being forced into taking medical insurance they can't afford & then being charged a fine and/or going to jail.
 
GutlessWonder86 said:
From what I've been reading in the news and from what the medical personnel have been telling us is this: under Obama Care pre-existing conditions will be covered but the gov't will decide if you are a high risk or not depending on your age, ailments, & if they are going to cost them $$$. Then they'll either say yes to getting the medical care you need or refuse treatment altogether.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that to be true, no where within the bill is that stated
 
"TURDTEAM". Sounds like a reputable source. :rolleyes:

Actually, this is everything there is to know about "Obamacare".

http://www.reddit.com/tb/vbkfm

From the link:

Obamacare will make the government get between me and my doctor!: The PPACA very specifically says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (who is in charge of much of the bill), is absolutely not to promote any regulation that hinders a patient's ability to get health care, to speak with their doctor, or have access to a full range of treatment options. ( Citation: Page 165, sec. 1554 )
Click to expand...
 
I am 100% happy with my current coverage. I know this is about the greater good and all that, but I sure as hell hope my coverage isn't affected. I only pay $60 for each Remicade infusion ($6500 charge).
 
I'm not sure that all of those "facts" are very accurate. I have seen that floating around on facebook. The thing is, it seems that things are being spun into ways of making obamacare look bad. Is it perfect? No, but nothing is.

The thing they fail to point out is that there are guidelines about people who would not be able to afford the insurance and/or the penalty they would receive for not having health coverage.

Also, insurance companies area already able to deny certain medications and or procedures depending on how they see fit. When I was taking Remicade a while ago, I had been taking it for a year and Humana decided that they no longer wanted to pay for it. We had to write numerous letters to the insurance companies and even had to have the doctor write a few letters in order for them to let me keep taking it.
 
I also just saw these facts were created by "TurdTeam" and they also use the source of CBO (Congressional Budget Office) which I have just search and do not see any of these "facts" stated at all.
 
Yep even if that were true insurance companies already do deny tests, prescriptions and care. I know mine does (Medi-Cal). Its not perfect but its free.
 
Doesn't sound bad at all. Don't see what all the fuss is about. My grandparents are completely against it just because they don't like Obama (they're racist). If you asked them what was in the bill, they can't answer right away and start making stuff up on the spot about how their home will be taken away. They already have medical insurance...
 
wonder if these politicians will be taxed like the middle class will to pay for Obamacare seeing as they got a HUGE raise.

http://www.newsmax.com/US/white-house-salaries-Obama/2012/06/30/id/444092?s=al&promo_code=F5B3-1


I mean, if Obamacare is so great, WHY DON'T THEY HAVE IT FOR THEMSELVES?? They have a top of the line health insurance policy and it should be taxed accordingly per their rules.

A 40% tax on "Cadillac Health Care Plans" starting in 2018.Those whose employers pay for all or most of comprehensive healthcare plans (costing $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for families) will have to pay a 40% tax on the amount their employer pays. The 2018 start date is said to have been a gift to unions, which often have comprehensive plans. (ATR.org)
 
I don't quite get it. So insurance premiums will go up, and everyone will be expected to pay premiums or be fined, yet the hospitals will be broke?
 
Am i wrong in saying that this is just like the UK's NHS? We have pay automatically deducted to go to the NHS (so no need to fine), yet we can still get private health insurance if you want quicker care and better wards
 
I'm failing to see what's wrong with it. Most places don't have a local low income health insurance and even the one here is strictly based off of income (you must be under the poverty line to get it). Even Medi-Cal and Medicaid have restrictions on who can get on based on income, how much you've worked and disability status. With this new care plan it sounds like those who have slipped through the cracks will finally get the medical coverage they need.
 
http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-new-obamacare-taxes-2012-7


even in the business insider it's saying pretty much the same thing.

$2,500 Cap on Health-Care FSA Contributions

Right now, there's no tax-law limit on contributions to your employer's healthcare flexible spending account (FSA) plan (although many plan impose their own limits). Amounts you contribute to the FSA plan are subtracted from your taxable salary. Then you can use the funds to reimburse yourself tax-free to cover qualified medical expenses. Good deal! Starting in 2013, however, the maximum annual FSA contribution for each employee will be capped at only $2,500.


What worries me is the cap on the flexspend accounts to pay for medical which is $2500. I don't think it's fair as there are many folks who have serious health issues like cancer, diabetes, IBD, MS, MD, stroke patients, heart attack survivors, etc. and they put aside over that much now in their flex spend to pay for chemo treatments, OTC meds, inpatient hospitalizations, ER visits, copays for doctors, etc. $2500 won't even cover that for these type of patients who frequent medical facilities and they work hard so they have this sort of assistance w/o relying on free handouts from the government.

----
and this rule: A"Medicine Cabinet Tax" that eliminates the ability to pay for over-the-counter medicines from a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account. This started in January 2011

Some patients use the flexspend(I do) to pay for specialized wound care packings that the insurance companies won't even cover like Alginate, gauze, special tape for those who are allergic, to name a few. How is this being fair to patients that TRULY need certain medical supplies but are denied using Flexspend for what it's intended. Even for specialized IV supplies for chemo patients that need it for their health/well being..they use their Flexspend to assist themselves financially so they don't have to rely on welfare and this is SUPPOSE TO HELP US???

The rich are getting taxed and so is the middle class.

----and this one

A tax on medical devices costing more than $100. Starting in 2013, medical device manufacturers will have to pay a 2.3% excise tax on medical equipment. This is expected to raise the cost of medical procedures.


If ostomy suppliers are affected by this tax, you can bet that they will pass down this tax to patients like us and those who have colon cancer.

HOW IS THIS FAIR to the middle class who is paying for those that DO NOT WANT TO WORK or don't want to have to pay for insurance. WE ARE PAYING FOR IT BY BEING TAXED AGAIN AND AGAIN. Who is supporting the middle class and helping them financially??? THEY WILL BE TAKING THE BRUNT OF THIS.
 
Last edited:
Morning Bell: Too Many Broken Promises in Obamacare

Alyene Senger

July 2, 2012 at 8:32 am


Yesterday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) almost called Obamacare’s individual mandate a tax, stopping mid-word to call it a “penalty”. White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew and other spokespersons echoed this talking point. This is in spite of last week’s Supreme Court ruling that deemed the mandate unconstitutional under both the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, but ruled that it could stand as part of Congress’s authority to “lay and collect taxes.”

Dubbing the individual mandate a tax saved the President’s health care law, but it’s a concept that President Obama himself has strongly denied. In a 2009 interview, President Obama argued that his individual mandate was not a tax increase, stating, “I absolutely reject that notion.”

But after last week, President Obama must now admit it’s a tax or admit the mandate is unconstitutional. It’s can only be one or the other.

The mandate is in fact a tax, and it’s just one of many new taxes that hit the middle class in Obamacare. Lo and behold, another broken promise. President Obama claims that the mandate is holding people responsible, keeping with that spirit, here’s a reminder of the other promises the President and his health care law are responsible for breaking:

Promise #1: “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.”

Reality: The individual mandate is far from alone on Heritage’s lengthy list of Obamacare’s new taxes and penalties, many of which will heavily impact the middle class. Altogether, Obamacare’s taxes and penalties will accumulate an additional $500 billion in new revenue over a 10-year period. Yesterday, a senior economist for The Wall Street Journal revealed that 75 percent of Obamacare’s new taxes will be paid for by American families making under $120,000 a year. Among the taxes that will hit the middle class are the individual mandate, a 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices, a 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning, and an increase of the floor on medical deductions from 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income to 10 percent.

Promise #2: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.”

Reality: Research continues to show that as many as 30 percent of employers will dump their employees from their existing health care coverage. The Administration itself has admitted that “as a practical matter, a majority of group health plans will lose their grandfather status by 2013.”

Promise #3: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits—either now or in the future.”

Reality: As Heritage analysts explain, “A close examination of what [the Congressional Budget Office] said, as well as other evidence, makes it clear that the deficit reduction associated with [Obamacare] is based on budget gimmicks, sleights of hand, accounting tricks, and completely implausible assumptions. A more honest accounting reveals the new law as a trillion-dollar budget buster.”

Promise #4: “I will protect Medicare.”

Reality: A Heritage Factsheet shows the various ways Obamacare ends Medicare as we know it, including severe physician reimbursement cuts that threaten seniors’ access to care and putting an unelected board of bureaucrats in charge of meeting Medicare’s new spending cap.

Promise #5: “I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.”

Reality: Obamacare does not accomplish universal coverage; it leaves 26 million Americans without insurance. Moreover, Heritage research outlines 12 ways that Obamacare will increase premiums instead of reducing health care costs. Requirements that plans allow young adults to stay on their parents’ coverage and offer preventive services with no cost sharing are already leading to higher growth in premiums.

When polled, 70 percent of Americans held an unfavorable view of the individual mandate. It’s doubtful that calling it a “tax” will dramatically change their opinion. Now that Obamacare and its broken promises remain the law of the land, it’s up to the American people to see to it that the law is ultimately repealed by Congress. Then, they can move forward with real reform that puts patients’ needs first.
 
GutlessWonder86 said:
HOW IS THIS FAIR to the middle class who is paying for those that DO NOT WANT TO WORK or don't want to have to pay for insurance. WE ARE PAYING FOR IT BY BEING TAXED AGAIN AND AGAIN. Who is supporting the middle class and helping them financially??? THEY WILL BE TAKING THE BRUNT OF THIS.
Click to expand...


Not all flex spending accounts let you put as much money as you want in it. My mom has a flexible spending account, and I don't know exactly what the cap is, but it wasn't any more than 2,000 dollars to begin with. I'm not sure how it works with other companies, but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't just hers.

Yes we are being taxed for obamacare, however, I think that it will end up evening itself out. For example, if someone who does not have insurance and gets into a serious accident, the hospital does not deny care to this patient to take care of them. They don't just let them die. They rack up huge hospital bills, and guess what? Most of them probably cannot afford to pay the bill. Who ends up paying for it? Everyone else. Through rising medical costs, whether it be increasing premiums, higher drug costs, increased costs for tests. Either way, we already end up paying for those who people who don't have the money, don't want to work, or work but can't afford those hospital bills. It happens a lot more than we probably think. Either way, obamacare or not, we are fitting the bill for these people anyway. I'm failing to understand what is so horrible about this Affordable Healthcare Act.
 
PLEASE REREAD Promise #4: “I will protect Medicare.”

Reality: A Heritage Factsheet shows the various ways Obamacare ends Medicare as we know it, including severe physician reimbursement cuts that threaten seniors’ access to care and putting an unelected board of bureaucrats in charge of meeting Medicare’s new spending cap.


Promise #2: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.”

Reality: Research continues to show that as many as 30 percent of employers will dump their employees from their existing health care coverage. The Administration itself has admitted that “as a practical matter, a majority of group health plans will lose their grandfather status by 2013.”

lies, lies and more lies. I can't make this stuff up.

Promise #5: “I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family’s premium by up to $2,500 a year.”

Reality: Obamacare does not accomplish universal coverage; it leaves 26 million Americans without insurance. Moreover, Heritage research outlines 12 ways that Obamacare will increase premiums instead of reducing health care costs. Requirements that plans allow young adults to stay on their parents’ coverage and offer preventive services with no cost sharing are already leading to higher growth in premiums.



physicians will be getting reimbursed at a lower rate, thus it will force them to retire or quit their job altogether. think about it, they have to pay for office space, equipment. payroll, etc. They are going to be losing money and if they can't afford it, they won't be able to care for their elderly patients properly and then what will happen to the patients? There will be a shortage of MDs caring for the elderly and they won't get the care they need.

REREAD this AGAIN: Reality: Research continues to show that as many as 30 percent of employers will dump their employees from their existing health care coverage. The Administration itself has admitted that “as a practical matter, a majority of group health plans will lose their grandfather status by 2013.”

My husband already told me his company will pay the fine and DROP their existing coverage for their employees. He has a great plan now where they pay for their employees entirely and a small amount is taken out for their spouses and once the company drops it for this new health care plan, we will wind up paying if not more due to the higher premiums/taxes. So for Obama to say that we can keep our healthcare is a BIG FAT LIE. It's up to the companies if they want to keep their plans or put their employees on Obama's plan. What do YOU THINK they are going to do to retain their profits?!!! DROP THE EXPENSIVE INSURANCE PLANS FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES and possibly LAY OFF THEIR WORKERS OR NOT HIRE AT ALL. Is this good for our economy?? By not hiring due to the higher taxes they'll have to pay?? NO


REREAD AGAIN: Reality: As Heritage analysts explain, “A close examination of what [the Congressional Budget Office] said, as well as other evidence, makes it clear that the deficit reduction associated with [Obamacare] is based on budget gimmicks, sleights of hand, accounting tricks, and completely implausible assumptions. A more honest accounting reveals the new law as a trillion-dollar budget buster.”

More lies. Look at the BIG PICTURE!! WE won't be keeping our insurance if we LIKE IT. IT'S UP TO THE COMPANY WHAT TYPE OF INSURANCE THEIR EMPLOYEES WILL HAVE. HELLO!! Also, when I talked to my doctors, they told me that they will keep their current patients but WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY NEW ONES UNLESS THEY HAVE PRIVATE INSURANCE and will REFUSE ANY ONE WHO HAS OBAMACARE DUE TO THE VERY LOW REIMBURSEMENT RATES.

It will be harder for people to find doctors and clinics that will accept the new insurance due to lower reimbursements. MDs have a right to accept and reject which type of insurance companies they want to deal with.
 
GutlessWonder86 said:
Also, when I talked to my doctors, they told me that they will keep their current patients but WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY NEW ONES UNLESS THEY HAVE PRIVATE INSURANCE and will REFUSE ANY ONE WHO HAS OBAMACARE DUE TO THE VERY LOW REIMBURSEMENT RATES.

It will be harder for people to find doctors and clinics that will accept the new insurance due to lower reimbursements. MDs have a right to accept and reject which type of insurance companies they want to deal with.
Click to expand...

Its always been that way except the people who couldn't afford insurance are now able to get treatment. What about all the people who die every year due to lack of treatment because they are low income? Don't they deserve the right to life?

Doctors have always picked and chose which insurance companies they accept. Take Medicaid and Medi-Cal for example. I already have difficulty finding doctors (I have Medi-Cal) that accept my insurance but you know what, there are places that do. Take the CHC (Community Health Centers) for example which services my area. They accept low income patients who have Medi-Cal, Medicaid, CMSP, any of the low income insurances. They supply all the doctors and give referrals to specialists who work through the CHC. So its not like those with "Obama Care" or Medi-Cal wont find a doctor to accept them. The CHC isn't the only place out there that does this for low income individuals.
 
yes everyone deserves to live Crabby. Obamacare is going to TAX the middle class to death is what I'm trying to point out. Also, those who are on welfare and are abusing the system, they need to be held accountable but the gov't won't because Obama needs their votes to stay in office.

and if you read the reality: When Obama said that those who already have insurance will get to keep it, IS A LIE. Even if they like what they have they MAY LOSE it because their employer will DROP IT AND PAY THE FINE and put the workers on Obamacare to save money and keep their profits. So how is what he said even true? IT's NOT. AS I ALREADY STATED, my husband's company is planning to drop their private insurance and pay the fine so we will have no choice but to go on this so called forced insurance we DO NOT WANT. If we don't take insurance, THERE IS A PENALTY. hello!!

WE want to KEEP what we have but can't all for the sake of the almighty dollar.
 
Insurance companies are all about the almighty dollar. I wish they were all done away with entirely.
 
To hit upon number 5, that is one item that will cause problems with the new healthcare law. There is no discrimination, as funny as that sounds. In a way, with how it is being set up it's in some situations as if Lindsay Lohan, with her crazy driving, is paying the same price for auto insurance as those who are responsible behind the wheel.

The people who have tended to not purchase health insurance have been younger Americans. Many can afford this insurance, but instead have opted to spend their money on other items. Maybe a questionable move, but they are young, often healthy, and not in need of expensive health insurance. Now, after the age of 26 and off their parents insurance, youth are being forced to purchase a product that they are not likely to use much. In essence the young are subsidizing older Americans, rich or poor, where most of our health care costs occur.

Recall this article from Professor Walter Russell Mead's sight about many Universities dropping insurance coverage for students next semester. Due to new requirements of what must be covered, insurance costs are much higher for young kids than they need to be.

"Obamacare Killing Affordable"

http://blogs.the-american-interest....amacare-killing-affordable-student-insurance/

With summer vacation upon them, students probably aren’t thinking much about their health insurance at the moment, but when they go back to school in August they may be in for a nasty surprise. Many schools are discontinuing affordable student insurance programs, citing new Obamacare regulations that would render these programs prohibitively expensive.
The Wall Street Journal provides an example:
Bethany College in Lindsborg, Kan., this past year offered a 12-month plan that cost students $445, while capping payouts at $10,000. For the 2012-13 academic year, the Obama administration said the payout cap must be at least $100,000. Bethany said students would have had to pay more than $2,000 to get that new level of coverage.
“We decided not to offer coverage for our students next year given the proposed increase in premium,” said Bob Schmoll, Bethany’s vice president for finance.
This is only one school, but colleges around the country are beginning to make similar decisions. The Jounal estimates that 60 percent of American colleges have plans that will be affected by the new requirements; many, if not all, will choose to cancel their insurance programs entirely. The Obama administration defends this as a protection against poor quality healthcare plans, but it’s hard to see how this benefits the students who will no longer have an affordable health insurance option.
We seem to remember that advocates of Obamacare told us that Americans who were happy with their current health insurance wouldn’t face any changes under the new law. Apparently, that wasn’t true.
One of the problems with the American health care system is the ability of lobbies to persuade Congress and state legislators to mandate coverage for their own pet causes or diseases. Chiropractors, acupuncturists, psychologists, drug companies: everyone wants to be included in mandatory coverage.
Unfortunately, every year special interests will find ways to hook new mandates onto the insurance requirements, and every year the cost of coverage will inexorably rise.
At one level there is nothing wrong with this; the more coverage for consumers, the better. But there’s the question of cost. If all insurance plans have to be gold-plated, full-service — and pre-existing conditions have to be covered — then health insurance is going to be unaffordable for many and perhaps most people. Young people in particular need low cost options; their incomes are low and their health risks are less so for some students choosing a cheap plan with limited coverage makes sense.
Students probably won’t be the only ones to face nasty surprises from the new system as time goes on. Although Obamacare was passed more than three years ago now, most of its provisions still have not taken effect. The public is slowly becoming aware of “minor” provisions hidden deep within the 2,700 page bill that are turning out to have a major impact on their lives. In many cases, people haven’t liked what they’ve seen; contrary to the predictions of supporters, public support for the bill has actually dropped in the years since its passage.
Click to expand...
 
GutlessWonder86 said:
Also, when I talked to my doctors, they told me that they will keep their current patients but WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY NEW ONES UNLESS THEY HAVE PRIVATE INSURANCE and will REFUSE ANY ONE WHO HAS OBAMACARE DUE TO THE VERY LOW REIMBURSEMENT RATES.
Click to expand...

You do realize "Obamacare" is not a type of health coverage. It is a slang term given to the bill he proposed. I think your doctors are uninformed.

"Obamacare" is the term given to the PPACA or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. If you doctors say that they wont cover anyone that has "Obamacare" are clearly not informed what is going on because no one can have "Obamacare" because it is a federal legislation.... :ybatty:
 
I know that. and no my doctors are not uniformed. The new government health insurance will be an issue as they will be reimbursed at a much lower rate for seeing patients especially medicare patients (the elderly).

I use to do medicaid billing and saw the set reimbursements the hospital would get for an ER and clinic visits. It was always one fee no matter what level of care in the ER, for example: a medicaid pt. comes in for the flu the fee was at the time $102.00 and another medicaid patient would come in for say a heart attack, that level of care would be a stage 4 or 5 as they'd be admitted and have many tests done yet the fee would be $102.00 instead of hypothetically over $2000 because of the severity of the diagnosis of the pt. For clinic visits it was $82.72. This is in NY State.

Under this new ruling, they WILL be getting paid at a lower reimbursement because the fees are set by the government.

REREAD: Reality: A Heritage Factsheet shows the various ways Obamacare ends Medicare as we know it, including severe physician reimbursement cuts that threaten seniors’ access to care and putting an unelected board of bureaucrats in charge of meeting Medicare’s new spending cap.

Unless you have done medicaid billing and understand how reimbursements are made and set by the gov't, you really have no idea how this will affect even your own doctors. They have bills to pay such as office space, health care for their employees, salaries, new equipment ---- A tax on medical devices costing more than $100. Starting in 2013, medical device manufacturers will have to pay a 2.3% excise tax on medical equipment. This is expected to raise the cost of medical procedures. (Breitbart.com)

thus the cost I'm sure will be passed down to the medical clinics/MDs/hospitals and then to the patient for them to cover their loss as it will eat into their profits. They need profits to stay afloat. Hospitals need to make a profit so they can stay open as well to care for the very ill. Am I right? Some of the hospitals here now are struggling due to low reimbursement rates from medicaid and medicare. I have seen it myself. I was a part of the billing dept. for 4 yrs. Medical facility NEED money to stay open and operational. If they don't, the care will be bare bones due to budget cuts just so they can stay afloat.

Do you really want to go to a hospital that has less than quality care due to this?? Do you want to wait in the ER for a severe bowel obstruction for many hours seeing as the hospital lacks the funds to run properly?? I know I wouldn't as an obstruction is EXTREMELY painful & needs to be taken care of STAT. (I've been through it many times but was seen ASAP thankfully).

Reread the new taxes (see link) set by this new healthcare. The middle class will definitely be affected as well as medical facilities and doctors.
 
As a beneficiary of socialized medicine and universal healthcare it is beyond my comprehension why a person with a chronic disease would not be supportive of access to healthcare for all. It is extremely distressing to read about US citizens on this site that do not have access to proper healthcare. If this Act assesses that issue - I cannot understand why any right thinking compassionate person would oppose it.

If you need to pay higher taxes to support universal healthcare - perhaps remedy your tax system so that your wealthy actually pay more taxes. And perhaps spend the tax you already raise a little more judiciously. Conducting wars against all and sundry on the flimsiest of premises (found those weapons of mass destruction yet??) is not an effective utilization of your financial resources.

I won't even touch upon using a source with the word "turd" in the title.
There is media beyond the Murdoch Press/Fox News you know. I would suggest you avail yourself of it. The hysteria of the right wing in the United States would be comedic were it not so profoundly embarrassing.

Furthermore - not all medical professionals are mercenary. I know plenty of doctors that work in both the public and private systems. They work in the public hospitals as they believe it is their civic duty to do so and feel it is the most socially responsible thing to do.

Americans do not paint an attractive picture of their nation, or of the character of their people.
 
A lot of things in the bill are as of yet unwritten rules. The problem with this is nobody in politics is actually talking about the nuts and bolts of health care because frankly it's boring and they need to say things that get you emotional. Like "death panels" The trouble with health care and politicians is the same problem they have with social security. You can win seniors votes simply buy being against social security reform. Once you get a national health care system, it creates huge voting block and in this case a lot of low income people will go into that block, people who don't usually vote republican. So democrats will support this healthcare package and not really care about how effective it is and republicans will be against it even if it was absolutely effective at providing good and low cost health care. For politicians it's about votes not about health. Where is my Rush Limbaugh, the guy who calls out the game both sides are playing all the time?
 
I thought this an interesting idea for Universal health care. Singapore has quality coverage for their people, but at half the cost of what is seen in Europe. As unpopular as Obamacare is, if it is repealed possibly this is an idea our nation can look at.

"The Singapore Alternative"

snippet from John Stossel's article:

...One solution is health saving accounts, or HSAs, in which people spend their own money for routine treatment (HSAs provide insurance for catastrophic health problems). Since Whole Foods adopted that policy in 2003, costs haven't risen -- and employees say they are happy with their coverage.
The country of Singapore is another success story. Singaporeans have universal healthcare, but their system is unique in that it runs on, essentially, the HSA model.
The WHO says that 64 percent of all medical spending in Singapore comes from individuals spending their own money at the doctor's office. In the US it's 13 percent. In France, where the government pays for just about everything, it's 7 percent.
The result? Economist Scott Sumner says:
1. Singapore health care costs only half as much as European health care.
2. Singapore has universal coverage.
3. Singaporeans live much longer than Europeans.
Some of that may be because of differences in culture and crime rates. But Singapore also beats its Asian neighbors that have government-run health care: Singaporeans spend half as much as Japanese, yet have virtually the same life span.
If we do want universal care, more HSAs would be better than Congress’ 2,000 pages of micromanagement.
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2009/12/23/the-singapore-alternative#ixzz1zg2gPKOP
 
I am for covering those they need it if they are really sick and those who abuse the system(ex-ER visit for the common cold, hangnail, baby has a diaper rash--YES this is what I SAW when doing medicaid billing) need to be held accountable and pay their copay. In NY state is it $3.00!!! yet, they REFUSE to pay and we got the tail end of their verbal abuse so the hospital has to write it off!! thus, they lose money BECAUSE of these freeloaders. If they were able to collect on these "frequent fliers" say $3.00 x 100 (yes, I've seen these types of folks come in almost every day or week for something minor in the ER) that's $300 the hospital could use to spend on medical supplies, or towards newer equipment that would help a patient or even save their life. If these people CAN AFFORD a new wide screen, new NiKES, get free cell phones, wear the gold chains and rings(ever see these folks? I use to in the Ob/Gyn when their baby moma went to have her 5th or 6th kid, then they CAN AFFORD to pay their share as well. $3.00 isn't much compared to what some of us have to pay.

I am just sick and tired of the lies and deception that go along with it. that's all. period. end of story.
 
Unfortunately things like that will always happen no matter what. Its possible that improving the education system in schools may help rather than denying people who legitimately need medical coverage who can't afford it. We shouldn't put a price tag on people's lives just because some abuse the system.
 
Unless you are a middle class hard working tax payer who is sick of being taxed to death and taking the brunt of things while the rich get out of the tax loop holes and those on welfare don't have to pay a thing, you'd think twice.

We need someone to stand up for the middle class and make things fair but it won't happen. Those that get the gov't freebies will be the ones voting for the one who gives it to them. The system needs to be revamped where they ACTUALLY WORK for their hand outs. No more being on welfare for life. It should be a limited time AND the gov't should be helping those get their GED and do job training instead of cutting programs that actually help those get off the system so they can become a functional member of society instead of mooching off it. period.

The gov't should be FOR encouraging the people to get out and make something of themselves where they are independent instead of relying on government hand outs all of the time. Some states actually have programs where folks have to show proof that they've been actually looking for jobs, getting their GED, job training before they will even give them a state medicaid check. That should be done in all states, and not just some.
 
We are a middle class family...two wages and we are both PAYE (Pay As You Earn) taxpayers. We aren't in a position to write off our earnings that it looks like we only $5,000 a year and we earn too much to be eligible for one government bonus or subsidy.
I certainly know how it feels to be the cash cow for the government...give, give, give for seemingly nothing in return but I still believe that are that there are certain things in life that are a basic human right and one of those things is access to quality health care.

There are certainly doctors in Australia that work in the public health system because of the reasons you state samboi but the system here is different in that the private hospital system isn't fully developed. By that I mean that the big money health costs are borne by the public hospital system and there are very few exceptions, that is why many private hospitals are on the same campus as a public hospital or very close to it. For doctors to access these more specialised services for their own patients they have no choice but to accept public hospital patients, it is a part of their visiting rights.

Dusty. :)
 
Crabby said:
Insurance companies are all about the almighty dollar. I wish they were all done away with entirely.
Click to expand...

I am a retired insurance agent. I think there may be a few things you don't understand.

If poor people in your area cannot get treated it's most likely because your state government has diverted funds to something other than medical care.

Sorry I've bitten my lips off and enough is enough.
 
Granted I didnt read all the posts-

But- why should I vote or be happy about Ins the President will NEVER have to use? This is not a positive.

Lauren
 
The current cap on FSAs is $5k and has been for at least 2-3 years. I max it out every year. And the amount of medical spending you can write off is 7.5% of your income, not $7500.
 
If this new plan is go great, WHY AREN'T THE REST OF THE POLITICIANS AND OBAMA USING IT??? Anybody have an answer to this question?? IF it's SOOOO WONDERFUL, then they should be using it too. Why are they exempt??

there's an old saying, "Something smells rotten in Denmark." Are they hiding something perhaps?? I don't trust a word they tell us. I'll believe it when I see it....their promises that are so empty.
 
Miss Underestimated said:
I am a retired insurance agent. I think there may be a few things you don't understand.

If poor people in your area cannot get treated it's most likely because your state government has diverted funds to something other than medical care.

Sorry I've bitten my lips off and enough is enough.
Click to expand...

Actually California does a pretty good job about helping those needy people and their families. I was speaking in general terms for the nation as a whole. I've seen people in both upper and middle class complain about their insurance for how expensive it is or what they decide not to cover. In that post I didn't say anything about "poor people."
 
California also pays out state disability out of "your"
Paycheck to people who only have to stay in the state 6
Weeks a year. You would be shocked to see what countries
"your" state taxes go to! You never have to work a day in your
Life to collect this. It's absurd to put in nicely.

Lauren
 
How do you all feel this will affect preventative health measures?

What measures are currently in place in the US to prevent avoidable health issues, e.g. obesity and smoking. Do you think this new legislation will affect what is already in place or will it add to new ones being put in place?
 
I think I just threw up a little, in my pants, out of my butt.

Lets all just jump on the speculative bandwagon on the many reasons that the Affordable Care Act is bad...

I guess you would rather be cut off by your insurance company (like I was) when you get sick, and then be denied future coverage because you have a PREEXISTING CONDITION.

The "tax" is a penalty for those who refuse to have health coverage.. Plain and simple. And what's wrong with younger people subsidizing older peoples healthcare?

Oh yeah... THAT'S SOCIALISM!!!


Please....
 
Has everyone forgot about the pre-exiting condition thing? As soon as I graduate college, I'm off my parents insurance, and I have to find my own. And I have a pre-existing condition, and take a $2000/month drug. So yeah, no insurance company would take me. And next time I get a stricture, too bad right? I've been legitimately worried about this. I can't be on my parent's insurance forever, and I have Crohn's for life.
The health care here is so fucked up, I am so proud of what Obama is trying to do. Nothing is perfect but this is a start. Let's not forget, all of us on here either have a pre-existing condition or have a loved one who does.
 
2dim1ox.png
 
Aw Slim, I see in the other thread you don't believe in the declining birth rate/ youth debt issue mentioned before. Thought to mention first, that part of my ancestry comes from Utah too. In the 1800s a mormon great great grandfather had 3 wives and 31 kids while living in Box Elder country. The story goes that after bigamy became illegal in the state, union soldiers would come looking for him. To escape capture Harman often slept at the bottom of a well. Overall, the mormon family was one of the more popular family I found when doing genealogy research. it seemed everyone had something good to say about them.

Well, with out getting much further into this debate thought to mention Obamacare is highly unpopular with the public. It's approval rating is around 30%. It has been that way now for 3 years, with one year where the President traveled constantly to try and improve its standing. After all this time the dislike for the new law doesn't come from a lack of information about the Affordable Health Care Act.

I mention this not so much to disparage as much as to say this means further change will be coming. It could mean that Obamacare will be repealed and replaced with something else. The coming election will largely decide that. Or over time the law will be modified, possibly greatly. Healthcare will not be the same as it was before.

I do like to joke though about the genius of the Obamacare plan for us IBD sufferes. Many doctors have stated they are leaving practice early due to the new health care law. Possibly up to 40% of doctors will leave in some polls. Personally, hard to see that happening soon in these trying hard economic times - then again the current medical system is not popular with doctors. Obamacare makes the system worse many physicians feel. So what has been Obamacare's response to doctors leaving early? Instead of making more doctors, instead it will hire more IRS agents, around 15,000. For us IBD sufferers that's brilliant. What better qualified professional to conduct an anal exam than a tax collector I say. :lol2:

Economically speaking, much like Europe, America is able to live the life style that we want to because investors around the world and at home are willing to loan us money cheaply. Currently for our government around 40 cents of every dollar spent comes from borrowed funds. As we are seeing in parts of Europe today, investors can loose confidence in countries that grow poorly economic and spend money unwisely. Currently here in the US our government is pulling out all the tricks in order to keep interest rates low. If our economy does not get moving soon, we will find our selves with further credit rating down grades and higher borrowing costs. One of the problems for our poor growths comes from our high regulatory system - or to put it another way, shovel ready projects are no longer so shovel ready. The left leaning Mother Jones had a piece on this issue yesterday.

"Why Nothing Is Shovel Ready Anymore: Part Two"

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/07/05/why-nothing-is-shovel-ready-anymore-part-two/

So Obamacare is a high regulatory piece of legislation. It doesn't need to be that way. We can do better, offering quality healthcare for all I believe. For example, I thought this John Stossel, posted earlier, mention about Singapore interesting, as medical costs there are half of what Europe pays. It gives people freedoms to choose what medical care they want to spend money on, quality is said to be excellent, and has been found costs less to society.

"The Singapore Alternative"

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2009/12/23/the-singapore-alternative

As for our changing times, it does seem our blue social system no longer works as it used to. That is largely due to automation/computers. One of the more striking cases we see for that is the Post Office. Today people use e-mail, texting and cell phones to communicate. Sending snail mail is rare. It seems about all the post office does these days is subsidize businesses by spending out junk mail cheaply. If that is the case, about the blue social model falling apart, it will be difficult to afford expensive social programs as we have in the past. A few articles on that ~

"As Blue Dies, What Happens To the Jobs? Part One"

http://blogs.the-american-interest....-blue-dies-what-happens-to-the-jobs-part-one/

&

"Post Blue Jobs: Part Two"

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/04/16/post-blue-jobs-part-two/
 
Beach said:
Aw Slim, I see in the other thread you don't believe in the declining birth rate/ youth debt issue mentioned before.

Well, with out getting much further into this debate thought to mention Obamacare is highly unpopular with the public. It's approval rating is around 30%.
Click to expand...

I hope you're not insinuating declining birth rate is a bad thing.

I think it's only highly unpopular because... well I could highlight reasons, but I think it's fair to say that we have a lot of silly americans, and a lot of unthinking americans, a lot of americans who want a capitalistic theocracy, and a lot of americans who just DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND OBAMACARE, because everything we hear about it comes from Faux news, crazy people who picket funerals, conspiracy theorists, etc.
 
Samboi said:
As a beneficiary of socialized medicine and universal healthcare it is beyond my comprehension why a person with a chronic disease would not be supportive of access to healthcare for all. It is extremely distressing to read about US citizens on this site that do not have access to proper healthcare. If this Act assesses that issue - I cannot understand why any right thinking compassionate person would oppose it.

If you need to pay higher taxes to support universal healthcare - perhaps remedy your tax system so that your wealthy actually pay more taxes. And perhaps spend the tax you already raise a little more judiciously. Conducting wars against all and sundry on the flimsiest of premises (found those weapons of mass destruction yet??) is not an effective utilization of your financial resources.

I won't even touch upon using a source with the word "turd" in the title.
There is media beyond the Murdoch Press/Fox News you know. I would suggest you avail yourself of it. The hysteria of the right wing in the United States would be comedic were it not so profoundly embarrassing.

Furthermore - not all medical professionals are mercenary. I know plenty of doctors that work in both the public and private systems. They work in the public hospitals as they believe it is their civic duty to do so and feel it is the most socially responsible thing to do.

Americans do not paint an attractive picture of their nation, or of the character of their people.
Click to expand...

Perhaps to you and that's fine. I'm not going to get into AHCA because no one can understand it fully. The thing is well over 2,500 pages. I will address the comment regarding American character.

The USA is a democratic society that was founded on self sufficiency. I'm not talking about the founding fathers. I'm talking about the people that really built this country. The farmers, the frontiersmen, etc. The thought of living in a birth to death society makes me physically ill.

I grew up POOR! I mean 6 kids, 2 parents and whatever relatives were down & out living in a two bedroom house that didn't having running water until I was 16. My clothes were hand me downs, we ate what we raised and we all worked the farm and whatever else we could pick up.

That being said: one of my sisters is a lawyer, another a doctor and my baby sister is (wait for it) a health care administrator. I have my master's degree and both my brothers have very successful business.

I tell you this to illustrate that people can work themselves out and up. That is what people are fighting against. People feel they are being bribed, backed into a corner. They are being told "You will do this, period. You have no choice, the government says so". We've been raised our whole lives believing that if you work hard, keep your nose out of trouble you can better yourself in this country. The middle class, which makes up the majority of this country, feels their way of life slipping out of their hands and it is scary.

That being said: there is not a people in this world as generous with time and money then the middle class of this country. Per capita, we give more to charity and donate more time to those in need then ANY OTHER country in the world.
 
I'm afraid your diatribe only serves to highlight the very point I was making!!
And I was going to refrain .... however it would be remiss of me not to mention the breathtaking hypocrisy of Americans when they speak of democracy as if they somehow own the patent.
Do you recall your presidential election in 2000? What a shameful shambolic mess. And need I mention the United States active participation in the downfall of the democratically elected governments of sovereign nations? And the support the United States has provided to countless autocratic regimes?
Seriously - pay your taxes like everybody else and enjoy the healthcare it provides - like the rest of us in civilized first world nations.
If you don't like universal healthcare - vote for the other person at the next election - that's how democracy works.
 
GutlessWonder86 said:
another up-to-date news story on how the Affordable Care Act will be TAXING our wallets in 2013...THE DEMS "FORGOT" TO MENTION THE INCREASE in MEDICARE PAYROLL TAX. just what we need...less take-home pay. :(

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012...care-taxes-that-will-hit-your-wallet-in-2013/
Click to expand...

Please don't ever post a link from foxnews, I will listen to my cat tell me news first before listening to them.

And please look at the first think in the link, it says "Opinion" which it is. An opinion from foxnews. It is not a fact at all.
 
Samboi said:
I'm afraid your diatribe only serves to highlight the very point I was making!!
And I was going to refrain .... however it would be remiss of me not to mention the breathtaking hypocrisy of Americans when they speak of democracy as if they somehow own the patent.
Do you recall your presidential election in 2000? What a shameful shambolic mess. And need I mention the United States active participation in the downfall of the democratically elected governments of sovereign nations? And the support the United States has provided to countless autocratic regimes?
Seriously - pay your taxes like everybody else and enjoy the healthcare it provides - like the rest of us in civilized first world nations.
If you don't like universal healthcare - vote for the other person at the next election - that's how democracy works.
Click to expand...

I am so sorry you took that as a diatribe. Your word for the day? Obviously, counter opinions are against your nature. I was polite, just expressing my opinion and trying to explain a different veiwpoint. Please keep your nasty, mean spirited, personally scathing comments to yourself. By the way, American bashing is the new sport. Welcome to being common.
 
Keep it civil people. Don't want to have to lock any threads on any part of the forum.
 
Ethan reread the article: just because the link says opinion these facts are true:
Six months from now, in January 2013, five major ObamaCare taxes will come into force.

Yes, we are going to be taxed whether it be the medical equipment companies or us, we WILL BE TAXED. I've read it from other sources and talked to others well versed with it.

Here is another link Ethan and it's NOT FOX:

http://www.smartmoney.com/taxes/income/what-obamacare-may-mean-for-taxes-1335896160486/


It's from SMARTMONEY. so yes, some of these taxes will affect us.
 
Ok ok, I read up and the 2.9% is correct, but this is needed to fund the other sides of Obamacare. And you only pay 1.45% of this tax. Also, if you look at it, a income of $60,000 a year will be taxed $870. That is nothing I would look at twice knowing all the good that Obamacare is creating for us with Pre-existing conditions.

Now let's look at the good side...

http://communities.washingtontimes..../five-reasons-obamacare-already-good-america/

http://ken_ashford.typepad.com/blog/2012/06/four-reasons-obamacare-is-a-good-thing.html

1. It will be cheaper for employers to provide health care. (I love this)
2. Health care costs for young Americans won’t skyrocket.
3. Millions of jobs will be created.
4. Obamacare will reduce the deficit.
5. No more Freddie the Freeloaders allowed.


Also, In a previous post you posted... "If this new plan is go great, WHY AREN'T THE REST OF THE POLITICIANS AND OBAMA USING IT??? Anybody have an answer to this question?? IF it's SOOOO WONDERFUL, then they should be using it too. Why are they exempt?? "

They arn't, if you read your own article it states... "Starting in 2013, an extra 0.9% Medicare tax will be charged on: (1) salary and/or SE income above $200,000 for an unmarried individual, (2) combined salary and/or SE income above $250,000 for a married joint-filing couple".

This definitely will include many if not all of the political officials.
If you still don't believe that then read this...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/12/08/congress-exempted-from-obamacare/

I still don't see why you are this harshly against it, Especially having a major disease that will benefit greatly from it.
 
Hey Gutless... do a better job vetting your sources...most of them are directly from the far right propaganda machine aka NEWS CORP. Your "Smartmoney" link is owned by NEWS CORP that also owns FOX NEWS. I am constantly amazed at the blatant lies and misinformation this group of so called news agencies produces. I am similarly amazed at the way people eat it up as gospel even though most of the time its nonsense and completely not true. This is the same organization that hacked the phone of the mother of a girl who was killed by a pedophile to listen to her voice messages. The girl was 8 years of age....these people are scum....getting anything remotely close to "news" or "facts" from them is absurd.
 
I think each person views this, obviously, on how they perceive it will affect them. This is how I see it (my OPINION only, okay?)

If you are someone such as myself, with a chronic illness that has always had very good insurance at a very reasonable rate and have never had a problem getting medications, procedures, etc....the AHCA is a nightmare. If you are someone that is self employed, works for a small company or can't afford insurance for what ever reason, it sounds like a miracle.

I can tell you that my insurance rate increased drastically for my husband and myself when the law went into effect for coverage for kids until age 26. And we have no children 26 and under.

As far as pre existing conditions: this is something that has never been a problem for me. I don't know if it's because my husband has always worked for large corporations or what. I thought that is what group insurance was all about. Spreading the risk throughout a large group. Although I purchased a life insurance policy independently recently and Crohn's did not effect the premium at all.

Maybe my way of viewing it is too simplistic but I figure I'll vote against it because I don't believe it can work and others that do believe it can work can vote for it. Getting all upset and crazy over it is not going to change the outcome either way.
 
Although not a socialist, I do agree with our health care system, (NHS), when I began work I paid into it, and for years I didn't use it, but when I was ill it was there for me, I know I can be ill without fear of getting a large bill and having to sell my house. its not a perfect system, there are waiting times for certain operations, but for an emergency, the system gets you in and down to theatre stright away.
 
Okay, my UK friends. I have a question that I'm sure will seem very silly to you all. I am aware that in the UK (and other places) you all have universal healthcare (or what ever it's called). But you also purchase private health insurance? How does that work? And why would you need to if your taxes pay for healthcare?

Just being nosy!
 
Hi Michele:

Chiming in from Canada. I have extended health benefits: I didn't purchase it...it's a work benefit. What it offers is prescription coverage, eyewear, services of massage therapists, chiropractors, psychologists, nutritionist, physiotherapist, acupuncturist, and naturopath. It also covers private nursing care after the hospital, private hospital room, reimbursement for orthotics and so on. There's a whole bunch more, but those are the services that I use of my health plan most often. My ostomy supplies are fully covered through there (although our government prescription plan covers my ostomy supplies after I meet the deductible---the deductible is income-tested). It also provides travel insurance, hearing aids, medical supplies, medical equipment, speech therapy.

The health plan also includes a dental plan...we don't have government funded dental care here.

Hope that helps!

Kismet
 
MADiMarc said:
Okay, my UK friends. I have a question that I'm sure will seem very silly to you all. I am aware that in the UK (and other places) you all have universal healthcare (or what ever it's called). But you also purchase private health insurance? How does that work? And why would you need to if your taxes pay for healthcare?

Just being nosy!
Click to expand...

Private healthcare can either get you seen quicker, at either general hospitals or private hospitals. These are normally with the same doctors so the advice may not be any different just the environment (and quicker to get seen), although most of the time its at a general hospital so you just skip the waiting list. For some insurances you can get money back on prescriptions, or time off work.

If there is an emergency you will be rush to a general hospital (NHS ran) as private hospitals dont deal with A&E. All this is paid via taxes so you do not have to pay a penny (except prescriptions for England that cost £7.65 per item flat rate fee, any medicine when in staying in hospital is free).
 
It all seems so complicated! It's kinda funny really as every year I study the plan layout that my husband brings home (I am now an expert at reading "legalize" and "exclusionary clauses") and have no problems figuring it out. I guess if it comes to be in the US, I'll figure it out too. Thanks for your input.
 
There are medical exemptions for perscription charges too, and ways of cutting the cost with pre-paid cards- I pay £10.40 per month over 10 months for a years unlimited meds so i'm not having to pay the charge each time.
 
and due to us having different councils, the drugs and treatment differ a bit, so it can become a postcode lottery (i.e some people getting lifesaving drugs in one area of UK where another may miss out). But all in all I have no problems with the care I get
 
EthanPSU said:
5. No more Freddie the Freeloaders allowed.


"Starting in 2013, an extra 0.9% Medicare tax will be charged on: (1) salary and/or SE income above $200,000 for an unmarried individual, (2) combined salary and/or SE income above $250,000 for a married joint-filing couple".
Click to expand...

1) What's Freddie the Freeloader?

2) Isn't that a little low? I mean, come on. Surgeons in Canada (the highest paying job), make less than 200000 a year. It's silly.
 
Interesting watching the Olympics opening ceremony and the feature made of the NHS. As well as listening to the underpinning philosophy for the NHS.
I then went on to read the morning newspaper - that advised there were fundraisers being conducted to pay for the medical care for people shot in a cinema in Colorado.
What an interesting juxtaposition and what an interesting reflection of two sets of cultural values.
I find it quite extraordinary that it is necessary for communities to raise money to pay for the medical care for people shot by a mass murderer.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights- Article 25 - have a read. The provision of medical care is a state responsibility. It's money well spent. I'm not sure why people complain about paying taxes for the provision of basic social services.
 
Their emergency medical costs are paid for by taxes. Just not at the federal level. A level 5 trauma center (where victims of GSW, stabbings, MVA are taken) treat EVERYONE. Now, someone such as myself, gets their insurance involved. Someone that does not have coverage is given the same level of care at the counties expense. I've worked at Ben Tuab here in Houston. That's how it works.

I've read some of the horror stories regarding NHC on this site and how long it takes for some people to get tests, medications and so forth. I've never had those problems with my coverage but others in this country have.

It sounds like we in the US would be exchanging a sweater for a jumper if you ask me. The same thing, just a different name. I'm beginning to believe that the only thing that will change is that I'll have to wait in line for 5 hours to get my blood drawn and my taxes would increase exponentially. So therefore, my standard of living would decrease. Sounds fair.

I have friends that are living here now that are from the UK and some friends from Canada. They tell me to fight this healthcare thing.
 
As with most publicly funded healthcare systems - there is also ordinarily a private system that runs parallel to the publicly funded system - for those that can afford it. If you can afford to do so - I would suggest that you avail yourself of it. Not all people have that opportunity - as evidenced frequently on this site.
I can afford private healthcare and happily pay for it. I also believe it is my obligation to do so, as I am then also not taking up a place in the public system that could be utilised by a person who cannot afford private healthcare.

Publicly funded healthcare would provide basic medical care to those that currently do not have access to it. I am at a loss to understand why you do not think this is an appropriate public expenditure. Your country spends billions prosecuting unnecessary wars - yet you can't seem to provide basic healthcare to those who might need it.

Just as all citizens of a civilised society should have access to public education, they should also have access to public healthcare. It is the mark of a civilised society, and as indicated in my previous post - it is considered a basic human right. Do you also begrudge paying taxes so all people can benefit from a public education? Or should that also only be for those who can afford it?

I have read a lot of hysteria, a lot of right wing rhetoric devoid of reasoning and a lot of paranoid nonsense and conjecture. What I have not read is a single logical reason as to why this is bad public health policy.
 
You didn't read the first sentence; there is public assistance for healthcare. County hospitals treat at no charge. It is a tax paid AT THE COUNTY level, not at the federal level. Please do stop going on about wars and such; this is not the thread for it nor the forum.

You are the one spouting rhetoric. I'm giving you facts regarding public healthcare and you choose to ignore it.
 
MADiMarc said:
You didn't read the first sentence; there is public assistance for healthcare. County hospitals treat at no charge.
Click to expand...

If that's true, it most certainly IS NOT nation wide.

Here you can go to the hospital for emergencies and get treatment but you get sent home with the bill if you can't pay (not the same thing as FREE). You have to apply for say CMSP around here and that's IF you qualify. You also have to apply within 5 days of getting care (that includes the weekend and holidays when they're closed, I know, its stupid). So people who get hospitalized or stay in the ER for a couple days (say they went to the ER Wednesday night) wouldn't be able to apply come Monday because the 5 days is up (I've seen it happen at the CMSP office when my fiance applied, a guy was turned away after breaking his leg, all because they count the days they aren't even open).
 
As I said, it's at the county level. What the county you live in chooses to do, they do. Here in Harris county (years before I came to live here) people voted to have a strong county system. We pay for it every year in our tax bill.

Crabby, I'm sure other places that are not as big have much less public assistance. I've never been in that situation. I'm just tired of reading how horrid the American way of life is, what horrible people we are, how selfish and uncaring.

No system is perfect. I just feel as if this AHCA stays then I will be paying twice for what I have now. I will be paying much higher taxes and then having to turn around and buy private insurance also.

Why can't we just fix what is already in place? We have Medicaid which is a nightmare for those that need it and is a fricking game to those that abuse/defraud it. Why does it take 3-4 tries to get on disability when you truly need it but if you higher a lawyer, you get it the first shot? The same people that have screwed up the systems in place are going to be the ones administering what they are proposing. why does anyone think they will do a better job with a different mouse trap?

I feel for people that have no health insurance or such pitiful insurance that they must choose between eating and medications. Again, I was born under a lucky star and have never faced those decisions. But I've also worked very hard to have what I have and I'm scared I could lose it. I don't think that makes me a horrible person.
 
Why can't we fix this or that? Still gonna come down to more money out of your pocket through taxes and that's what the real issue here is. People don't want to pay more money. It isn't them or their friends and family dying so it doesn't affect them. It all comes down to money being more important than people's lives, health and general well being in your own country.

We're talking about basic human rights here. The right to life.

It just sounds like, "which is more important, someone's life or money?" With someone answering, "who's life and how much?"
 
It's been that way since the invention of fire, Crabby. "Hey, Ugh has a bigger cave, I'm gonna bash his head in and take it cause I'm bigger". Of course I don't wish to give up my standard of living. I don't wish any ill will on anyone else and I don't think the fact that I've worked 20 hour days should mean that I have to pay for anyone else either. Yes, I have a lot but I've worked a lot. I also give to charity at a high rate, volunteer my time (now that I don't work 20 hour days) and pay a high rate in taxes. Should everyone receive the same benefits? I have no problem helping people out. I have no problem with fixing what we have. I do not understand why anyone would think that death rates will decrease, disease will decrease or attitudes will change with the AHCA. Nor do I understand how a socialized system administered by the very people that refuse to be part of the system they are telling us is so great, can work in a nation as large and diverse as the US is.

You're right: I do not want to pay more. I don't want to pay for a system I don't believe in. The blanket statement of which is more important, someone's life or money I found offensive.
 
My kids have experienced both. They were on medicaid as I worked my way through my last years of college, almost 2 years, as soon as I was able to find employment that offered benefits, even though I still qualified for my states low income healthcare(medicaid called peachcare) I tightened my budget to the extreme and got the group policy offered by the non profit I was employed with...it was just better services. Since I have worked my way up career wise, married and my husband has worked his way up and we are on his healthcare. Now, if I am paying higher premiums and higher taxes to ensure care then my request is that the care provided not be of lower standards than what I pay for now. I'll agree to that with no issues but if I am going to pay higher taxes and my private ins. premiums are going to rise but the services/coverage is going to be more limited, restricted or scrutinized then why exactly am I supposed to be excited about that? Already, the AMA is against certain recommendations and statements set forth by the US Preventative Services Task Force concerning prostate and breast screenings, giving insurance co. an out on covering them. I am much more inclined to want my doctor deciding which and when tests regarding my health are necessary. No, I know the above group is not necessarily connected to obamacare but there are committees, there has to be to ensure fiscal viability of the program, made up of non elected members that will in some way affect how the healthcare services are disteibuted. Yes, as long as I can afford to pay higher taxes and ever increasing premiums then this may not affect me. But if you are going to take my money and distribute it to provide insurance to those that can't afford it or in other instances are not willing to then the least that could be done is that their public healthcare services are doing more than what they do now. I firmly believe the Affordable Care Act will nit be able to ensure a higher level of care than what the current Medicare/Medicaid system provides.
 
Emergency healthcare administered on a county level in an ad hoc fashion would not meet the needs of most Crohns sufferers, let alone most people with any health concerns.
What about pre planned surgery such as bowel resections? What about a basic colonoscopy?

It is entirely relevant to make references to other public expenditure such as public education and the prosecution of various wars. These are your tax dollars at work. You willingly pay for these things - but not universal healthcare?

A lack of desire to pay marginally more tax to fund good public policy such as universal healthcare is not very persuasive. In the 60 or so countries that have universal healthcare there is a clear link between this policy and positive economic, social and community outcomes.
 
It isn't marginally more. Perhaps for individuals raised to believe that they should be taken care of in every way, for every need, by the government from birth to death would see it that way; I don't.
 
My concern is this: if I need to see a specialist, how long would it take to get seen? I've heard people with UHC claim it takes months to see their GI. I could call my GI today and be seen within a couple days, if not later this afternoon. I don't need the government's permission to seek help with whoever I think I need help from. If I need surgery, will the gov't have a say in whether or not I get that surgery? Right now, if my GI deems it medically necessary, insurance will approve it. I like my current health coverage and really don't want it to change.
 
Have we got figures of how much its going to cost the average earner per week/month? (not in percentage but in real term money). and also how much you actually lose after tax (ie. if you lose $100 from your wage, but pay 40% tax that would mean you are really only losing $60).
 
That is where most of the fear comes from. No one knows for sure. All we see are that 17 new taxes are going to be enacted at the beginning of the year to feed this. Also the Bush tax cuts will expire at the end of the year. As Nancy Pelosi says "We had to pass it to see what's in it".

Economists have come out and said (The Hertige Foundation for one, there are others) that approximately 710,000 people will loose their jobs because of this tax crap. Unfortunately it will be those in the service industries and those that run small businesses hardest hit. Not only directly by declining jobs in those fields but because others will have much less disposable income to support those industries.
 
Are they the same economists that failed to predict the global financial crisis?
Or the economists that nearly brought the financial system to its knees - requiring billion dollar government bailouts? (in a classic case of privatize the profits and socialise the losses).
Or are they the economists from a self serving right wing think tank, supported by a self confessed drug addict?
 
I think when it comes to UHC we will have to agree to disagree because we are comparing apples with oranges.

The one thing I am genuinely interested in knowing is...The US is the only wealthy industrialised nation not to have UHC. If it works in all the other comparable nations why won't it work there. What makes the US unique?

chrisnsteph1022 said:
My concern is this: if I need to see a specialist, how long would it take to get seen? I've heard people with UHC claim it takes months to see their GI. I could call my GI today and be seen within a couple days, if not later this afternoon. I don't need the government's permission to seek help with whoever I think I need help from. If I need surgery, will the gov't have a say in whether or not I get that surgery? Right now, if my GI deems it medically necessary, insurance will approve it. I like my current health coverage and really don't want it to change.
Click to expand...

I have never had an issue with getting my children seen by a specialist. For urgent appointments I have been able to get in within a couple days, it was more dependent on the doctors schedule than anything else i.e. days ruled out because he was doing procedures all day.

The government has nothing to do with the everyday running of patients and doctors. For example Matt's case...he was sick...I took him to the GP Monday...the GP suspected Crohn's and ordered blood tests and scans/ultrasounds...the tests showed problems (Friday)...appointment, scopes and further tests ordered with specialist for Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday the following week...diagnosis made. He then developed complications on two occasions and had surgery. At no point throughout this process was there government involvement and nor would there ever be. The doctor/specialist recommends to you what needs to be done and you either consent or you don't.

It is exactly the same as the US if you go as a private patient, the insurance decides on approval. If you go as a public patient you need no ones approval, what the doctor says goes, the government has no say in it.

The only time there is government involvement in treatment is when it comes to some of the expensive drugs associated with disease. Our medications are subsidised under what is called the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). Once a medication is approved under the scheme the cost is capped. $34.00 a script full price regardless of the medication, if the price of a medication is cheaper than $34.00 then naturally you only pay the shelf price. If you are a pensioner or health care card owner the price is about $5.40 a script. Under this scheme some very expensive meds have eligibility criteria attached to them before approval is accepted by the government.
It a scheme that is none too popular with the pharmaceutical companies because it is lucrative to them to be accepted onto the scheme, no one here will purchase a medication that isn't on the scheme when there is an equivalent one that is, but at the same time the government negotiates a price at which they will purchase their product.

For those interested this is a transcript of an older program about the PBS and the international pharmaceutical companies wooing of the conservative government of the time...

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/s248583.htm

Dusty. :)

PS I see other replies have come in so this response may be out of step. :shifty:
 

Similar threads

S
Two year old with symptoms
Replies
22
Views
3K
J100
J
K
This has destroyed my life.
Replies
27
Views
2K
kephra
K
N
I've Got SOMETHING Wrong With me...
Replies
3
Views
1K
notafan
N
Soryan
PARADIGM SHIFT NEEDED!!!
Replies
1
Views
1K
kiny
kiny
L
How to travel overseas with 1 year of Skyrizi? let's brainstorm
Replies
13
Views
3K
nofun
N

Latest posts

Back
Top