Vent thread "universal" health care

Gotta vent here.

Three times this week a patient or family member who was looking for more and more benefits added to their (already insured and covered and provided for) health care needs told me "THIS IS WHY WE NEED UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE!"

Ok, now, simmer down. Universal health care will do some good things. It will allow the working uninsured access to at least SOME medical care.

"Universal" does not mean that you or your loved one will get EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE!!!

So sorry, didn't mean to shout. Thanks for the safe place to vent.

Amen!

The public does NOT understand what universal health care really is. Due to disability and unemployment, my children and I have had to go on TNCARE, Tennessee's Medicaid program. I am thankful to have some type of coverage, but the reality is that preventive care/services are covered and specialist care barely is...it took 3 months to get my son in to see a dermatologist after getting the run around w/his PCP for 6 months and I finally got my rheumatologist referral, after waiting 3 months to get my PCP physical, and I cannot be seen until June, 5 months away! Mind you, I have RA and have been under the care of a rheumatologist 4-6 times per year for 6 years-I haven't seen one in 11 months as I lost my COBRA coverage a year ago.

I imagine Universal Health Care will be something like what I have...and it sucks!

An ad hominem attack insulting my intelligence is not an effective way to strengthen your argument. You made the patently false assertion that somehow, nobody would be receiving free health insurance because everyone (your word) will now be magically paying in to the new system. I refuted this with a linked source. You really should have just admitted you were wrong on this one; the personal insult did not help your position.

One more thing about gov't subsidized insurance - my current employer-based family health insurance plan amounts to 12.5% of our combined gross monthly income - 56% MORE than what Obamacare declares as a level deserving of federal subsidization. Should I just let the government steal money from your paycheck to pay my insurance? Hell no! Yes things are tough for us on my EMT wages and my wife's part-time income, but I'll forgo the new iPhone, premium cable channels, and dinners out in order to pay for what we need.

Ok, so now this is an entirely different claim. Let's talk about this. First, define "affordable". Since I cannot afford health insurance under the 8% rule (nevermind that I am already paying for it), how exactly is Obamacare going to make my health insurance more affordable? By creating a massive new Federal bureaucracy?

And don't just say, "the individual mandate will make more people pay in to the system". This is a non-starter: the individual mandate is unConstitutional! The federal government cannot force a citizen purchase a product or service. This argument is no different from me saying, "I'd have a nicer car if I took the one out of my neighbor's garage". Both are equally illegal.

Now, perhaps you have read all 2700 pages of the bill and fully understand it; if so, please explain to me where in the bill I can find the percentage decrease that I will see in my health insurance premiums. I look forward to seeing the extra money back in my paycheck.

Oh by the way, if Obamacare is going to provide superior, lower-cost health care, how come hundreds of big businesses, unions (Yes, unions!), and insurers have petitioned for and received WAIVERS to be EXEMPTED from the provisions of the law? (google it if you don't believe me; it's true, and trying to insult my intelligence wouldn't make it less true).

The individual mandate is the only way a universal health system can work. It is no surprise that insurance companies are trying to be exempted from provisions of the law; they are looking at profit margins. Insurance companies most certainly do not have the good of those they insure at heart (to be fair, many businesses don't, which is how they can run in the black). Once again, this is a moral issue. Britain, Germany, Sweden, France (which has the best-rated healthcare system in the world), Canada, Japan, et al have all elected to cover what they are able with what they are able - this calls for not being able to cover every little thing (as the OP was venting about). Are the taxes that come out of your paycheck equally illegal? The Medicare? The Social Security? Would you feel better if it was called a tax instead of a mandated insurance premium?

Everyone paying into the healthcare program (yep, that dirty 'individual mandate' phrase again!) ensures the premiums can be affordable. Do the math: when you have a million people sharing a cost, it's a lot cheaper for that million than say a thousand people sharing a cost.

Your insurance costs sound terrible! Thank goodness there's a plan in place to help defray that now :)

Wrong. The individual mandate does not "require that everyone pays into the system".

Source

(Note: this is sourced from an article that is generally supportive of Obamacare.)

So yes, the same people who are receiving literal free health care will STILL be receiving literal free healthcare under Obamacare, and in fact, this law encourages even MORE of this behavior. It will increase healthcare costs, decrease accessibility and quality of service, and do little more than grow another permanent federal bureaucracy.

I am crystal clear in my understanding of how a socialized healthcare system works, and I want nothing to do with it.

Apparently not and I don't know where you would possibly be familiar with one from either.

meanwhile:

The people who would not have to buy health insurance above are the very poor - and you're already paying for their insurance. What ACA does is make people who reasonably can buy insurance, via subsdiation, into PRIVATE employer plan. Well, you'r epaying for their healthcare too every time they go to the ED and beyond.

In short this act brings DOWN the costs for the average taxpayer. That's a good thing.

Again, your "understanding" falls far short of how a universal healthcare system works. Those people who fall under that 8%v provision receive the state standard for Medicaid, or if their age provides, Medicare. What the universal system will do is provide affordable care for those who cannot afford insurance but still do not qualify for Medicare/Medicaid.

I get it though; don't let facts get in the way of your personal bias Now start posting some "literature" on death panels and "the government takeover." Don't forget your foil hat :)

No kidding. ::sigh::

Naw, that won't happen. The new "reforms" will just force your employer to switch to a cheaper, crappier policy that meets the 8% limit, never mind that it has higher out of pocket costs for you and is more restrictive.

Been there, living that nightmare right now.

I'm exceptionally bitter that employers are not allowed to offer employees a choice between a higher premium "Cadillac" plan and a lower cost option. My husband's employer was forced by the new rules to change our insurance to a new plan starting 1/1. Our premiums went down, out of pocket has tripled and four weeks into it I'm having to appeal a denial of coverage for something that the old insurance had covered for 10+ years.

First, they're doing that anyway and have been for 30 years as healthcare costs have skyrocketed.

Second, there is nothing in the ACA, presumably that's what you mean by "Obamacare" that is in itself going to raise costs and make your employer do anything.

Pooling more people into the system to have coveage is a GOOD thing - you're paying their bills now as well as for companies like walmart that hire parttime workers or don't pay them enough to opt into health plans and then encourage them to apply for public assistance. THAT's what you should be outraged about and I'm puzzled why you're directing your anger to direct and sensible expert-supported attempts to tackle the real issues.

Amen!

The public does NOT understand what universal health care really is. Due to disability and unemployment, my children and I have had to go on TNCARE, Tennessee's Medicaid program. I am thankful to have some type of coverage, but the reality is that preventive care/services are covered and specialist care barely is...it took 3 months to get my son in to see a dermatologist after getting the run around w/his PCP for 6 months and I finally got my rheumatologist referral, after waiting 3 months to get my PCP physical, and I cannot be seen until June, 5 months away! Mind you, I have RA and have been under the care of a rheumatologist 4-6 times per year for 6 years-I haven't seen one in 11 months as I lost my COBRA coverage a year ago.

I imagine Universal Health Care will be something like what I have...and it sucks!

It should. Tennessee has about the highest number of people on Medicaid in the nation. In fact so many that people aren't even allowed to opt out of the health exchange (which controls costs by eliminating redundant tests and diagnostics by making the full record of all encounters available to majority of providers) and the people didn't protest because they knew TNCARE was on the verge of collapsing. my point, the private sector so many of you shout for clearly wasn't working in that bastion of redness in Tennessee. So tell me, where were the free market wonderful private solutions? Seems like (and THIS is a shocker) health insurance companies do indeed like to cherry-pick their policy holders and poor people in TN ain't on the list. Nobody could afford private insurance. So maybe those "Obama care" exchanges make sense after all.

And speaking of, where IS the personal responsibility? TN has one of the highest smoking rates in the nation.

If welfare recipients can be drug tested with passage required for the benefit than surely it's time to test Kentucky, the Carolinas and TN for evidence of tobacco use in effort to at least somewhat stop socializing their irresponsible choices onto responsible hard-working taxpayers.

Understand I'm not advocating for any of this. But I do ask people to practice what they preach. I'm sick and tired of the red state mantra, states that have survived off of the tax dollars of blue states throughout most of history, just having to listen to them give lectures to the rest of us on freeloading and welfare is nauseatingly hypocritical.

Romney care is a disaster because it isn't financially viable but not because of your insistance that mobs of people are rushing to get as much free healthcare as they can.

Romney, as always, tried to play both sides. Today he's an uber-rightwinger. But when he's campaigning (in Mass), he's a moderate centrist guy and is going to put a healthcare plan in place, but then he's a rightwinger again when it comes from exempting all big business to pay into it.

In effect, what he did was RELIEVE the tax burden of big business that formerly had to carry health plans for their employees, let them shirk it onto the state while exempting them from paying for it and leaving the already overstrapped, hardworking taxpayers to pick up the slack. Talk about socialism indeed!

Of course they were not the ones with the means to absorb it - if you haven't noticed consumer discretionary income has been on the decline for a long time now.

Of course by the time this was evident to everyone ole Mitt had left someone else holding the bag. Puhlleeze, at all costs, keep him away from the Presidency!