Will Obamacare become law this week?

[jthomas666]

Why don't you answer your own question? I don't think it is anywhere nearly as broken as it would take for 2k+ pages to fix, do you? These people worthy of more assistance, well just how much should we have to give before they are expected to stand on their own feet? I'll ask you the same question I asked in another thread. How many of these so called poor people's houses have you been in? I have been in many and all of the examples I gave are spot on plus some. When will everybody in this country have to uphold their end of the bargain? You guys on the left always want to talk about fairness but why is it fair for me to have to pay someone else's rent, buy their food, pay them a salary, pay for their childcare, and now you think I should pay for their health insurance. All of this while they have and do all of the things I talked about in my earlier post.

I asked you the question because you seemed to think that you knew the answer. Perhaps you don't. As for all of the "poor people's houses" you've been in, that's nice. I freely acknowledge that there are those who abuse the system. There will always be people who abuse any system, whether it's poor people abusing food stamps or rich people abusing tax loopholes.

That fact does not mean that we should not try to improve the system.

If Medicaid isn't the answer then do you honestly think the government will come up with something better? It amazes me that some think the government will do anything better.

Ah yes, the inevitable libertarian-tinged tirade. It sure beats proposing a solution, doesn't it?

So your attitude is that the government is incapable of solving ANY problem, so it should not even try. That's kind of sad.

 

[swoop10]

Right now its the uninsured that pay (or are billed) the most. Its very common for me to receive a report from BC&BS showing an 'amount charged' amount 2 or 3 times higher than the 'amount allowed' and there are no shortage of docs willing to accept BC&BS rates.

That is simply not true. I have a friend who doesn't have insurance and had to get an operation. Once the bills started coming they were able to negotiate a much lower price for him to pay. I know you love Rush so much so I'll also use him as an example. During his healthcare crisis in Hawaii he paid lower because he paid without insurance.

 

[Bodhisattva]

This. The American workers and businesses can't continue absorbing the cost of rising healthcare costs. Something has to be done. At least the Democrats are willing to do something. I'm really tired of the GOP not offering real alternatives or change.

Wow. So much incorrectness in so few sentences.

Don't take this the wrong way, but if you apply that thought process to every political issue please don't vote.

 

[2003TIDE]

Wow. So much incorrectness in so few sentences.

Last time I check my healthcare is going up (I've had no health problems and rarely go to the doctor. Add to that it is a higher deductible plan. So even if I did go I'd pay out of pocket. All the time the insurance company just keeps collecting money from me and my employer.) My portion increase and my employer's share increase.

Republicans were in charge for how many years? And didn't fix squat.

What is incorrect with any of that? Please enlighten me.

 

[swoop10]

So our current path works just fine? Is that really what you think? That's what sad.

Then again that goes along with GOP thinking "Let's not come up with any solutions. We'll just point out how wrong their solution is".

Maybe you should try reading the whole thread before making statements that don't make any sense. I've already said that something needs to be done but not this. Fixing the system doesn't include a complete overhaul. If your sparkplugs go bad you don't replace the whole engine.

I asked you the question because you seemed to think that you knew the answer. Perhaps you don't. As for all of the "poor people's houses" you've been in, that's nice. I freely acknowledge that there are those who abuse the system. There will always be people who abuse any system, whether it's poor people abusing food stamps or rich people abusing tax loopholes.

That fact does not mean that we should not try to improve the system.

Ah yes, the inevitable libertarian-inged tirade. It sure beats proposing a solution, doesn't it?

See above, and you can try to get snippy all you want but to expect me to give you an answer on how many pages could fix the problem is silly. I don't need you to tell me what I think I know. You are good at asking questions but not so good at answering them. You acknowledge that people abuse the system yet want to give more. Well the government should give more. As to the tax loopholes, they are there to be abused. Why have them if they aren't there for people to use them? They are there for friends of government to use but as a result others find them and use them also.

Since you edited and added on I will reply to that. The government should stick to what it knows and it isn't healthcare. Perfect examples are Medicaid and Medicare. Everytime the government tries to fix something they make it worse. Please give some examples where the government went in to fix something and did so.

 

[Bodhisattva]

Last time I check my healthcare is going up (I've had no health problems and rarely go to the doctor. Add to that it is a higher deductible plan. So even if I did go I'd pay out of pocket. All the time the insurance company just keeps collecting money from me and my employer.) My portion increase and my employer's share increase.

I've already posted reasons why costs go up and solutions in this and in other threads. Basically, the system is set up so that there is little competition, there is buffet-style pricing (pay the same amount no matter how much you use, thus encouraging one to use a lot), and many people are already subsidized (doctors get 20 or 30 cents on the dollar for medicare/medicaid patients). All of these things force prices up. This is the way government rigged the game.

THe solution is not more government. The solution is more market forces.

Republicans were in charge for how many years? And didn't fix squat.

I'm not a Republican. But, if you're logic is that a worse deal (Obamacare) is better than a bad deal (current situation) then I must respectfully disagree.

What is incorrect with any of that? Please enlighten me.

It's up to you to be enlightened.

 

[buzzincuzzin]

The political "system" has created it's own solution to any problem. Support your local lobbyist,,,,, at all cost.

 

[2003TIDE]

 

[jthomas666]

You are good at asking questions but not so good at answering them.

a delightful response, given the way you've been ducking my questions.

You acknowledge that people abuse the system yet want to give more.

I acknowledge that ANY system can be abused, but don't try and use that as an excuse not to do anything. There's a difference there.

 

[swoop10]

That's pretty good. Who did you get to take the picture for you?:wink:

 

[CrimsonChuck]

IMO, this would setup a situation where every good doctor stayed out of that system and bad doctors would jump in. Why would good doctors join in when they wouldn't be paid as well and have to do more paperwork?

Both good and bad doctors have to pay for malpractice insurance.

 

[Bodhisattva]

Last time I check my healthcare is going up (I've had no health problems and rarely go to the doctor. Add to that it is a higher deductible plan. So even if I did go I'd pay out of pocket. All the time the insurance company just keeps collecting money from me and my employer.) My portion increase and my employer's share increase.

I'd like to elaborate on this point.

You are paying not just for yourself, but for all those who don't pay or pay only a little. I have many friends in the medical community, and I have thousands of examples of anecdotal evidence of how patients abuse the system at taxpayer expense. There is no free lunch; all bills must be paid.

An imperfect analogy is a dinner at a family restaurant. The best way is for you and your family to choose the meal you want and pay for it. Get a steak or a sandwich and be charged appropriately. Simple.

What we have is the buffet. Pay one price (payroll deduction) and have at it. THis encourages abuse (over demand). Add in the partial payers (medicare) and the nonpayers and prices go up. This is basic economics.

The "reform" is to get even more nonpayers to be treated to the buffet at the expense of those who can pay. Medicare reimbursement will also decline. Costs will rise on businesses and the "wealthy" (which is very losely defined). Those who work for small business will lose their coverage due to rising costs on those business (Mamacalled can back this up). This bill does nothing to control costs; it only covers more people.

So, instead of you paying the buffet bill for you and your family, you're paying it also for many others. Eventually, you can't foot the bill so someone else will pay for you. Then someone else will pay for that guy. Eventually only a few will pay the bills, and the system will collapse (see Social Security).

 

[swoop10]

a delightful response, given the way you've been ducking my questions.

I acknowledge that ANY system can be abused, but don't try and use that as an excuse not to do anything. There's a difference there.

I haven't ducked anything. I just think your question is silly. You want me to give you an exact page number I think this bill should be. I will give you a round about number. How about less than the number of pages it took to write the Constitution? Will that do?

Once again I will say, as I have said in this thread, I THINK SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE JUST NOT THIS. Sorry to get loud but somehow you and others don't seem to get that part of my posts.

 

[2003TIDE]

There is no free lunch; all bills must be paid.

Not really in this case. What like only 20% of what is billed is actually collected. I never really got the hospitals business model. They bill $50 for an aspirin, negotiate a $5 rate with private insurers, and negotiate a $2 rate with the government. The whole time they know they aren't getting $50 from anybody.

 

[Tider@GW_Law]

If anybody cares about actual statistical evidence, here is a pretty good report from the Urban Institute out today. Bottom line = if our healthcare system continues current trends, the middle class is going to suffer the worst consequences over the next 10 years, though all classes will be noticeably worse off.

Under any scenario, the analysis shows a tremendous economic strain on individuals and employers of all sizes. While all income levels would be affected, middle-income families would be hardest hit. Within 10 years, under the worst-case scenario, we estimate that:
»[FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro][FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro]»[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Helvetica 65 Medium,Helvetica 65 Medium][FONT=Helvetica 65 Medium,Helvetica 65 Medium]The number of uninsured Americans would increase from 49.4 million in 2010 to 59.7 million in 2015 and 67.6 million in 2020. [/FONT][/FONT]If states were to cut back eligibility for public coverage or make the enrollment process more difficult, the number of uninsured would be even higher. Even in the best case, the number of uninsured would rise to 57.9 million in 2020.
»[FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro][FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro]»[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Helvetica 65 Medium,Helvetica 65 Medium][FONT=Helvetica 65 Medium,Helvetica 65 Medium]A larger share of the uninsured would come from middle- and higher-income families. [/FONT][/FONT]The share of the uninsured from families with incomes higher than 200 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) would rise from 44 percent to 56 percent in 2020.
»[FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro][FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro]»[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Helvetica 65 Medium,Helvetica 65 Medium][FONT=Helvetica 65 Medium,Helvetica 65 Medium]Premiums would become increasingly expensive for employers and their workers. [/FONT][/FONT]Premiums for both single and family policies would more than double by 2020, increasing from $4,800 to $10,300 for single policies and from $12,100 to $25,600 for family policies. Even in the best case, single premiums would rise to $7,800 and family premiums would rise to $19,500 by 2020, increasing much faster than incomes.
»[FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro][FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro]»[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Helvetica 65 Medium,Helvetica 65 Medium][FONT=Helvetica 65 Medium,Helvetica 65 Medium]Offers of coverage would fall significantly for workers in small and medium firms. [/FONT][/FONT]Small firm workers would see offer rates almost cut in half, dropping from 41 percent to 23 percent in 2020. Workers in medium-size firms would see offer rates fall from 90 percent to 75 percent. Overall, the rate of employer sponsored insurance coverage would fall from 56 percent in 2010 to 48 percent of nonelderly Americans in 2020. Even in the best case, the rate of employer sponsored insurance coverage would fall to 53 percent in 2020.
»[FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro][FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro]»[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Helvetica 65 Medium,Helvetica 65 Medium][FONT=Helvetica 65 Medium,Helvetica 65 Medium]Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) enrollment and costs would increase substantially. [/FONT][/FONT]Enrollment would increase from 45.4 million in 2010 to 58.2 million in 2020, an increase of 12.8 million nonelderly Americans. Medicaid and CHIP spending for the nonelderly would increase from $278 billion in 2010 to $576 billion in 2020, an increase of 108 percent. Even in the best case, spending would increase by 59 percent to $442 billion in 2020.
»[FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro][FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro]»[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Helvetica 65 Medium,Helvetica 65 Medium][FONT=Helvetica 65 Medium,Helvetica 65 Medium]Employers would see large increases in premium costs. [/FONT][/FONT]Employer premium spending would increase from $430 billion in 2010 to $851 billion in 2020, a 98 percent increase. Even in the best case, employer premium spending would increase by 67 percent in ten years. These increases would be even higher if employer coverage rates were to hold steady over this period rather than decline as predicted.
»[FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro][FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro]»[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Helvetica 65 Medium,Helvetica 65 Medium][FONT=Helvetica 65 Medium,Helvetica 65 Medium]Uncompensated care costs would more than double. [/FONT][/FONT]The cost of uncompensated care would increase from $64 billion in 2010 to $140 billion in 2020. In the best case, the cost of uncompensated care would increase by 74 percent and total $111 billion in 2020. Together with increased spending on Medicaid and CHIP, this would mean higher federal, state, and local taxes even without reform.
»[FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro][FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro]»[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Helvetica 65 Medium,Helvetica 65 Medium][FONT=Helvetica 65 Medium,Helvetica 65 Medium]Health care costs paid directly by families would increase significantly. [/FONT][/FONT]Individual and family spending on premiums and out-of-pocket health care costs would increase from $315 billion in 2010 to $564 billion in 2020. In the best case, these costs would rise to $471 billion by 2020.

 

[Bodhisattva]

Not really in this case. What like only 20% of what is billed is actually collected. I never really got the hospitals business model. They bill $50 for an aspirin, negotiate a $5 rate with private insurers, and negotiate a $2 rate with the government. The whole time they know they aren't getting $50 from anybody.

When I said all bills must be paid, I meant in the big picture. Yes, you may not pay it all, but someone will. That's why costs rise so much in health care - costs go up for the people that actually pay the bill.

Back to the dinner example .... The guy at your table may still eat for free (or deeply discounted), but the part that isn't paid is rolled into the price of your meal.

A $5 pill may cost $50, but that's because 10 guys got it for free.

 

[jthomas666]

I haven't ducked anything. I just think your question is silly. You want me to give you an exact page number I think this bill should be. I will give you a round about number. How about less than the number of pages it took to write the Constitution? Will that do?

My point was that your initial point was itself arbitrary: 2000 pages=BAD!!

Once again I will say, as I have said in this thread, I THINK SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE JUST NOT THIS. Sorry to get loud but somehow you and others don't seem to get that part of my posts.

OK, so what would you propose?

 

[jthomas666]

Not really in this case. What like only 20% of what is billed is actually collected. I never really got the hospitals business model. They bill $50 for an aspirin, negotiate a $5 rate with private insurers, and negotiate a $2 rate with the government. The whole time they know they aren't getting $50 from anybody.

It's basically an elaborate accounting shell game.

 

[swoop10]

My point was that your initial point was itself arbitrary: 2000 pages=BAD!!

OK, so what would you propose?

2K pages does = bad. If you don't have the Cornhusker kickback, the Lousiana Purchase, and all of the other bought votes you don't have 2k pages. This is one of the things that I don't get with some of you supporters of this bill. If so many people had to be bought or bribed to vote for this bill, how can it be a good bill?

There are atleast 50 threads about healthcare and I have proposed some ideas there. I think there are many ways to go about this. The employer insurance is a problem because they have to group everybody together. I know the idea is that by grouping they can balance everything out with the good and the bad but by grouping they also have to give everybody the same coverage whether they need it or not. For example, therapy for alchol or drugs. Even though you may not need this you and your employer have to pay for it because you can't single out the people who want it. IMO, if people could buy insurance for themselves and had control of what insurance they wanted and didn't want, things could get better. I've already heard the excuse that it would be more expensive this way but I don't believe it would. You pay for what you want and if you use it more you pay more, if you use it less you don't pay as much. Also, maybe you could group your insurances. Let's say you have Geico for car insurance and home, well maybe they could group up with a health insurance and make all of the insurances less expensive. How you guys don't see that government involvement in this is probably the biggest problem with healthcare costs is a mistery to me. Now, where are your ideas or is this bill the best you think we can do?

 

[jthomas666]

There are atleast 50 threads about healthcare and I have proposed some ideas there. I think there are many ways to go about this. The employer insurance is a problem because they have to group everybody together. I know the idea is that by grouping they can balance everything out with the good and the bad but by grouping they also have to give everybody the same coverage whether they need it or not. For example, therapy for alchol or drugs. Even though you may not need this you and your employer have to pay for it because you can't single out the people who want it. IMO, if people could buy insurance for themselves and had control of what insurance they wanted and didn't want, things could get better.

This is an interesting suggestion, particularly since all evidence suggests that group insurance is cheaper than individual insurance, even though you may be getting coverage that you don't want/think you need. That's not a matter of government control, it's a simple matter of economics.

Question: The bill strongly encourages/requires that employers provide insurance? Does it require that you accept it? Does it prevent you from turning that coverage down and finding alternative coverage?