Should Obama care be repealed?

[luv2]

[h=1]another poll question?[/h]

[heron, ASN, RN]

There is not an easy answer to healthcare, but there is an easy answer to your question. The countries you are speaking of have (almost) no national defense. Their sovereignty is owed to our huge capital expenditure to ensure their safety.

We are getting off the topic of healthcare; but compare apples to apples. Or do you really think any country in Europe would not have been overrun 70 years ago by the Soviets if not for us?

Since it's looking likely that we're fixin' to hand them over to the soviets anyhow, we should shortly have plenty of money to give single payor a shot.

[Mfs1]

Repeal. It was a scam to assist in a monopoly. Thinly the large expense for the middle class. Partners repealing to help the middle class and higher not be broken by the expense of the garbage insurance and healthcare. For those impoverished and the homeless this has helped tremendously and that part needs to stay. It harmed many financially and their health care became substandard for them. However,it helped many underprivileged.

[Cowboyardee]

There is not an easy answer to healthcare, but there is an easy answer to your question. The countries you are speaking of have (almost) no national defense. Their sovereignty is owed to our huge capital expenditure to ensure their safety.

We are getting off the topic of healthcare; but compare apples to apples. Or do you really think any country in Europe would not have been overrun 70 years ago by the Soviets if not for us?

Ill try not to give a politicized answer, as there's already far too much partisan bias in healthcare debates. Lets grant you that the US spends a higher percentage of its GDP on defense and military than many first world nations, and also that other NATO members have benefitted from this. It does not follow in any obvious way that this discrepency in military spending necessitates having a less efficient, costlier, or less effective healthcare system. You'll have to connect the dots more if you want to convince me that there's any kind of link at all, aside perhaps from the military's effect on the overall tax burden on American citizens.

The fact of the matter remains that citizens of countries with single payer systems are generally willing to pay higher taxes than we do in the US, military spending or no. Even more to the point, its not clear that the military and healthcare industrial complexes are much related to each other at all (or how), and your claim that they are would lead to some odd conclusions. For example, one might expect that Israel, which spends twice as much on military as a percentage of GDP as the US does to have a healthcare system in shambles. In fact they have universal coverage and efficiency and outcomes that are very competitive among first world nations and substantially better than our own.

[Mini2544, ASN, RN]

We probably have widely varying reasons why we don't like the ACA, but at least people generally agree we could do better, so what would you all change?

I read two different comments on here from people praising the plan and one praised it because of the super poor people with pre existing conditions who barely paid anything for it and get medical help and the other praises it because of all the refugees who come here and receive low to no cost medical care.

As a non refugee, middle class American who decided to return to school full time to pursue nursing and is healthy, it caused me to lose my previous insurance, pay a mandatory premium so I'm not billed at the end of the year (thank goodness that changed already) and if I ever were to receive medical care, my 5K premium is most likely paying for the aforementioned recipients of this plan.

We aren't a socialist society and that's exactly what the ACA is in it's current form is.

My suggestion is to change the plan to where it's representative of a capalistic society, because that's what we are.

[Jolie, BSN]

If Obamacare did not force people to have health insurance,then who would treat these people if they had an emergency?

The ER?

No,they do not treat people for free.

Someone has to eat the cost even if you didn't want to.

Too many people think the care provided in the ER is free.

I don't support the government forcing citizens to purchase a product against their will. But nor do I support enabling irresponsible behavior on the part of competent, able-citizens who refuse to take responsibility for their own needs.

Obamacare's mandatory coverage makes insurance unaffordable for far too many people. We've already read examples of this from professionals working full time, so we can imagine how it applies even more so to young people with modest incomes. In order to gain their participation, changes must take place that lower the cost of coverage, including allowing individuals to choose plans tailored to their needs and budget.

If young women want to save money by choosing a plan without maternity coverage, LET them do so. And let them take the responsibility of preventing pregnancy, or arranging payment in advance for the services they will need if they become pregnant.

If families don't wish to pay for a policy with preventive care, let them purchase one without, and pay out of pocket for their kids' sports physicals.

If mentally competent, able-bodied adults choose to go without coverage at all, LET them! But when they show up at the ER with a back-ache or ear ache, require them to make payment arrangements before they are seen. If they show up with a life or limb-threatening emergency, stabilize them using the minimum resources possible, and discharge them with a down payment and payment agreement in hand.

Unless and until we demand responsibility from (some) people, we will never get it. We need to lose the nanny mentality that we know better than they do what they need, and we need to quit bailing out their stupid decisions. Most of us who have raised teenagers have learned this lesson with our own children, yet some refuse to apply it to others in society at large. That puzzles me.

[Mini2544, ASN, RN]

I don't support the government forcing citizens to purchase a product against their will. But nor do I support enabling irresponsible behavior on the part of competent, able-citizens who refuse to take responsibility for their own needs.

Obamacare's mandatory coverage makes insurance unaffordable for far too many people. We've already read examples of this from professionals working full time, so we can imagine how it applies even more so to young people with modest incomes. In order to gain their participation, changes must take place that lower the cost of coverage, including allowing individuals to choose plans tailored to their needs and budget.

If young women want to save money by choosing a plan without maternity coverage, LET them do so. And let them take the responsibility of preventing pregnancy, or arranging payment in advance for the services they will need if they become pregnant.

If families don't wish to pay for a policy with preventive care, let them purchase one without, and pay out of pocket for their kids' sports physicals.

If mentally competent, able-bodied adults choose to go without coverage at all, LET them! But when they show up at the ER with a back-ache or ear ache, require them to make payment arrangements before they are seen. If they show up with a life or limb-threatening emergency, stabilize them using the minimum resources possible, and discharge them with a down payment and payment agreement in hand.

Unless and until we demand responsibility from (some) people, we will never get it. We need to lose the nanny mentality that we know better than they do what they need, and we need to quit bailing out their stupid decisions. Most of us who have raised teenagers have learned this lesson with our own children, yet some refuse to apply it to others in society at large. That puzzles me.

wow so well said. I've always thought it's interesting how we don't put any responsibility and accountability on our own citizens. If someone has a disease that is exacerbated by bad diet and lifestyle yet the person makes no changes to accommodate this.. we keep treating this person, picking up the cost, and placing no accountability back on the person.

Mine is an unpopular decision on here but I don't care. It's ridiculous.

[kbrn2002, ADN, RN]

I don't know why you believe that, because it's not true. In the case of the gentleman I know best, he pays $80/month for his insurance via the state health connector (exchange). It was $40/month last year, but his income went up a little so he crossed over into the next higher income bracket for subsidy. That's out of a net income of less than $1000/month (I see his checks). So, that's about 8% of his income goes to insurance premium. What percentage is yours? If you earn $50,000/year, 8% is about $4000 per year, or about $333/month. We just had somebody here whining that hers was $260.

He has a $50 copay if he goes to an ER (which he had to do due to injury and a medical error in prescription for BP leading to syncope while driving the truck, twice last month). That's another $100, another 10% of his monthly income for that month. If you have a $100 copay, what percentage of your monthly income is that?

When he sees his MD, that's a $15 copay. Probably same as yours, but again, a higher %age of his income.

So... tell me how this is "way better benefits" than yours. You want to swap with him?

I was not talking about any insurance that is available on a state insurance exchange. Rather the state provided benefit for low income eligible, aka "welfare." The amount of no cost or very low cost coverage is incredible. Really surprised me for Wisconsin. We used to be a welfare magnet state as the AFDC, food stamp, housing, energy assistance and medical programs offered way more benefits than any other border state and more benefits than most states in the country. Welfare reform has changed this quite a bit, but apparently the medical assistance is still quite robust.

Just a few things that I know are covered thanks to some of the girls at work that receive medical assistance talking about services they have received at zero cost: braces for their child, chiropractor, acupuncture, zero co-pay name brand meds etc. Of course they may not be telling the whole truth, but I see no reason for them to lie about it. The one that really gets me is zero cost orthodontics. I don't know of any private pay dental or medical insurance policies that completely cover braces. Thank God my kids didn't need them, but I did and it was expensive for my parents even with insurance and that was over 35 years ago.

[pmabraham, BSN, RN]

The US population for 2010 was ~309 million. Are you suggesting that the government subsidized Obamacare for 300 to 900 trillion dollars?

$1 million each and 309 million people = $309 million dollars. Now check how much was spent on implementing Obamacare.

[chare]

$1 million each and 309 million people = $309 million dollars. Now check how much was spent on implementing Obamacare.

No, you need to recheck your math.

[elkpark]

$1 million each and 309 million people = $309 million dollars. Now check how much was spent on implementing Obamacare.

Ummmm, no, $309 million dollars would be 309 million people x $1.00. 309 million people, $1 million each, would be $309,000,000,000,000. $309 trillion. (Hope your math is better on dosage calculations.)

That is a heckuva a lot more than the ACA has cost so far (unless you live in GOP Fantasy World, that is -- I'm sure they have all kinds of crazy figures they believe).

How Much Did Obamacare Cost?

[Not_A_Hat_Person, RN]

For those nurses that are covered by an employer plan, be aware that in the next few years the ACA mandated ALL new employees, every job, every state, to be on an ACA plan. Employer plans were going to be killed off by attrition. That meant that great plan you get through your employer would be 5-10 times what gets withheld from your check. I really did read the plan. Most of the worst had yet to be implemented.

When I was covered by my ex-employer's plan, I paid $800/month for 2 adults, with a $5,000 deductable. If I had to sign up for Obamacare, I probably would have come out ahead.

[Jolie, BSN]

When I was covered by my ex-employer's plan, I paid $800/month for 2 adults, with a $5,000 deductable. If I had to sign up for Obamacare, I probably would have come out ahead.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Our current family of four premium is $1500/month, with a $15,000 deductible. Because our plan won't pay for care outside our immediate area, we had to purchase a second, college-based policy for our daughter who attends school out of state, to the tune of another $200/month. I'd trade you places in an instant.