Um... where are all those valiant defenders of ObamaCare that were here a year ago? Totally flaming anyone who dared to have any doubts about how Democrat promises square with reality.
Debacle.
Train wreck.
Disaster.
Total fail.
Incomprehensible.
Illogical.
Impossible.
Unrealistic.
Just some of the adjectives applied to the roll out by radical Tea Party news outlets like the Washington Post and the New York Times, CBS and NBC.
Thank god I have insurance through my company. If i didnt, I would be forfeiting almost 2/3 of one of my paychecks for the worst plan. If anyone can say this is anything but a giant failure, i would like to hear how.
Thank god I have insurance through my company. If i didnt, I would be forfeiting almost 2/3 of one of my paychecks for the worst plan. If anyone can say this is anything but a giant failure, i would like to hear how.
The only thing worse than Obamacare is what we had before. It seems the only difference between liberals and conservatives is that what liberals would make significant changes given the option.
Prior to Obamacare, it's certainly possible that you might have had to pay 2/3 of your paycheck for health insurance, although now it's effectively capped at 9.5% if you make
OK, I am back at home on a real computer with a real keyboard... fat fingers on a phone (Galaxy S4) "keypad" are a PITA. Please pardon the delayed response.
First, and I am apolitically serious about this, I would scrap it and start over. The costs in just the financial expenditures (i.e., armed IRS agents and more of them, more committees and board to oversee the program, "navigators" - some of whom do no better at their "job" than do some TSA employees, etc.) are just the beginning. The mere fact that we were not given the truth up front about Obamacare right from the start by those who set it up. is but one reason. Beyond that, the program depends upon a strong economy with a lot of tax revenue, but we are seeing the economy wallowing (and have been for a while) with no real improvement in sight.
Scrap it and start over to build what?
That Obamacare is mandatory says something as well... so good it has to be mandatory. If it is that good, how about setting it up so people can opt in or out as their needs and finances dictate?
Like most young adults, my needs and finances dictated that I didn't want to spend money on something I could get for free (by having others carry my financial risk). It made a lot more sense to just risk bankruptcy and let someone else pay my bill, I'll be the first to say I shouldn't have been given that option. Whatever happened to the Conservative's mantra that the "takers" are bad?
If it must indeed be mandatory, why not force all those government employees, elected and appointed officials, and exempted persons on it?
Purchasing health insurance is mandatory, that applies to "all those government employees" and everyone else.
The more we are finding out about "what's in it", the more we are realizing that maybe this is not only about health care, but rather about control. A government that "provides" your health care can - and most certainly will - ensure that its costs are reduced by telling you how to live and what not to do. The ultimate control of our health care will be when (not if) a "single-payer system" is established. Who will be that "single" payer? Not one person, but rather, it will be those of us who are working and paying increased taxes, all while the incentives to work harder, earn more, and improve our lives (and country) are diminished. "Single-payer" is just another bureaucratic talking point, and nothing more - it sounds good to some, but needs to be more carefully investigated for the consequences.
How are they controlling your healthcare? Insurance is still regulated at the State level, the insurers are private companies, your doctor, hospital, etc have not been taken over by the Feds.
Prior to Obamacare, about 44,000 people a week were losing health insurance, a large portion of which was ending up on medicaid (government "controlled" insurance). I would think you'd be all for requirements intended to maintain non "government controlled" health insurance.
I am not ready to hand over decisions about my health care to some bureaucrats in Washington, DC... even if they finally get that awful web site working any better.
How about doing away with regulations the reduce or eliminate competition among insurers? I can buy all sorts of other insurances from any company in the US in any state. Why not health insurance? We all pay too much for insurance, but now we will have to pay for coverage we do not need (I seriously do not need coverage for contraceptives).
You can't purchase health insurance from state to state because Republicans, specifically the Republican Governor's Association lobbied heavily (and held medicaid hostage) to make sure that State's can maintain different conditions for insurance from one state to another, which makes insurance plans state specific. The various Republican reform bills continue this incompatibility and rely heavily on State by State autonomy. In other words, if you want State's to have autonomous power for managing health insurance, you can't also expect to buy a plan from another state and have it work in your state.
We all pay too much in taxes as well. How about tax incentives for people to set up health care savings accounts (like IRA's). Even without the tax incentives (they would be helpful), a savings plan for health care could be a great investment. Incidentally, I am rarely a fan of using tax policy as an incentive for anything, unless it involves lowering taxes and government spending in general.
Money deposited in an HSA is already tax deductible.
The real problem with my suggestions is that, if implemented, they would turn the power back to the states and ultimately to the individuals. Most politicians enjoy their stature as part of the ruling class because they do not have to live by the laws they impose upon the rest of us. This is directly opposite the intention of the founders, and of the framers of our legal system, but we are becoming a nation of "free stuff" and of self-proclaimed victims awaiting the next panacea from the government. A politician comes along, promises something for nothing, all while not being truthful about the costs and consequences, and many people flock to that person or party... almost like cheering for a favorite sports team, although the costs involved are enormously higher. This has become a government that, if some person or group opposes it, the IRS is sent to them for an "audit". Did the founders and framers really envision an IRS that 'has what it takes to take what you have'? Heck, they didn't even envision an IRS, let alone an armed one.
Are we really ready to continue down the road to mediocrity or worse for ourselves and our descendants? Once we commit to that path, climbing back out of the hole will be a monumental, if not impossible, task.
I don't know how you can specifically oppose being a nation of "free stuff" and also be opposed to a mandate. If it's all about control by being the insurance provider, why did the government give that away to private insurers. If you don't want everyone to be dependent on the government for healthcare, mandates are really the only way to change that, otherwise we're eventually headed for the "Death spiral" of private insurance.
The Founding fathers didn't envision the IRS specifically, they actually envisioned using militia's to enforce the Laws of the Union, paying taxes being one of those.
I'm not why the IRS becomes such a central figure in these conversations, are people under the impression that the IRS will now "run" healthcare?
I see the "cut & paste" of portions of my reply, but I also see a great deal of misinterpretation of what I posted. For example, I cannot find in my post where I stated "the IRS will now run healthcare" nor anything close to that. My point not taken was that the IRS will enforce Obamacare. Big difference. That you choose to quote some of my statements and then misrepresent what I posted tells me something about where this discussion is headed.
The government has not really "given" the insurance carriers anything, other than regulations the government knows will put those companies out of business, once and for all. Rather than beating the "competition", bring the full force of the government down on them... It has been said in government that a "single-payer" system is the goal, and that has certainly become apparent.
I see a lot of your response to my post as simply giving up and letting the benevolent government take over control... sad, that.
Why must this be a battle between liberals and conservatives (i.e., my earlier reference to supporting favorite sports teams)? How about a debate between what was really going on before Obamacare (not what some demagogues on both sides of the debate said was happening. They frequently trotted out somebody with a sob story about how they are being "denied healthcare" because of those mean hospitals. When all is said and done, many of those demagogues and politicians on both sides of the debate will sit high and dry, well above what will be a degradation of health care... because they got exemptions that the rest of us poor folks cannot have. We will get the crumbs. This is only the beginning.
I currently pay $800 per month for my employer's second-cheapest plan, which is $25 per week more than the catastrophic plan. I don't make much, and Hubby hasn't had a job that provided health insurance in 5 years (unless you count the worthless mini-med plan offered by Sears). We have 2 babies on the way, a family health plan will cost us about $1100 per month. According to my state's health exchange website (which works just fine), it will be cheaper to buy a silver plan or bronze plan through the state, even without a subsidy.
Medicare was initially attacked as socialist. Working out the initial kinks took out about 2 years. Today, no mainstream politician would dream of destroying Medicare.
Medicare (today) is not sustainable, just as most of our government is not sustainable. Few, if any, in our government are thinking about the "and then what?" in all of this. They come up with stuff like Obamacare, but put the word "Affordable" in the name; criticize it and risk being labeled a racist and/or against "healthcare for everyone".
I spoke with a guy in Delaware the other day who is retired on disability, as is his wife. He sang the praises of Obamacare... it was going to be their financial and medical salvation. They are now finding out what is actually costs them and what it will not cover; their opinion of it has changed.
Yup, those are the people we have elected to represent (and work for) us.
I see the "cut & paste" of portions of my reply, but I also see a great deal of misinterpretation of what I posted. For example, I cannot find in my post where I stated "the IRS will now run healthcare" nor anything close to that. My point not taken was that the IRS will enforce Obamacare. Big difference. That you choose to quote some of my statements and then misrepresent what I posted tells me something about where this discussion is headed.
I tried to make it clear that was a generic observation, which is why I said "are people" under the impression, instead of "are you", although even then I'm trying to encourage you to clarify that as opposed to saying what you think. Although I'm still not sure if you're saying the IRS will enforce Obamcare or not, as far I'm aware it's HHS and state governments that enforce Obamacare.
The government has not really "given" the insurance carriers anything, other than regulations the government knows will put those companies out of business, once and for all. Rather than beating the "competition", bring the full force of the government down on them... It has been said in government that a "single-payer" system is the goal, and that has certainly become apparent.
It encourages more business for them and even protects them against losses through "risk corridors", so I'm not sure why you think it's intended to put them out of business.
I see a lot of your response to my post as simply giving up and letting the benevolent government take over control... sad, that.
I'm not sure where you're getting that from.
Why must this be a battle between liberals and conservatives (i.e., my earlier reference to supporting favorite sports teams)? How about a debate between what was really going on before Obamacare (not what some demagogues on both sides of the debate said was happening. They frequently trotted out somebody with a sob story about how they are being "denied healthcare" because of those mean hospitals. When all is said and done, many of those demagogues and politicians on both sides of the debate will sit high and dry, well above what will be a degradation of health care... because they got exemptions that the rest of us poor folks cannot have. We will get the crumbs. This is only the beginning.
I'm all for that, so what was really going on before Obamcare?
Medicare (today) is not sustainable, just as most of our government is not sustainable. Few, if any, in our government are thinking about the "and then what?" in all of this. They come up with stuff like Obamacare, but put the word "Affordable" in the name; criticize it and risk being labeled a racist and/or against "healthcare for everyone".
I spoke with a guy in Delaware the other day who is retired on disability, as is his wife. He sang the praises of Obamacare... it was going to be their financial and medical salvation. They are now finding out what is actually costs them and what it will not cover; their opinion of it has changed.
Yup, those are the people we have elected to represent (and work for) us.
Our healthcare system in general is likely unsustainable in it's current form, although between medicare and private insurance I don't think there is much arguing that medicare has far more potential to be sustainable. It costs far less to operate and it's cost inflation rate is much lower.
First, and I am apolitically serious about this, I would scrap it and start over.
What would you replace it with, aside from "Get sick, die quick?" What are the millions of people who now have health insurance for the first time supposed to do about paying for health care? Will people with pre-existing conditions go back to being uninsurable at any price?
A government that "provides" your health care can - and most certainly will - ensure that its costs are reduced by telling you how to live and what not to do. The ultimate control of our health care will be when (not if) a "single-payer system" is established. Who will be that "single" payer? Not one person, but rather, it will be those of us who are working and paying increased taxes, all while the incentives to work harder, earn more, and improve our lives (and country) are diminished. "Single-payer" is just another bureaucratic talking point, and nothing more - it sounds good to some, but needs to be more carefully investigated for the consequences.
Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA work well for the people who use them. I have relatives in the UK, and I live near the Canadian border. Both countries have single payer. Each country's system has its problems, but no one goes bankrupt from medical bills, and no one has to hold a bake sale to pay for cancer treatment.
I am not ready to hand over decisions about my health care to some bureaucrats in Washington, DC... even if they finally get that awful web site working any better.
As opposed to now, when your health care decisions are determined by faceless bean counters in whatever state your health insurer is located?
How about doing away with regulations the reduce or eliminate competition among insurers? I can buy all sorts of other insurances from any company in the US in any state. Why not health insurance?
Insurers that want to sell policies in your state have to follow your state's rules, regardless of where they're headquartered.
We all pay too much for insurance, but now we will have to pay for coverage we do not need (I seriously do not need coverage for contraceptives).
I hope you don't expect me to pay for your prostate cancer treatment.
That Guy, BSN, RN, EMT-B
3,421 Posts
Thank god I have insurance through my company. If i didnt, I would be forfeiting almost 2/3 of one of my paychecks for the worst plan. If anyone can say this is anything but a giant failure, i would like to hear how.