Health Care law

[inertia4]

I believe that america should have the same kind of medical coverage like Canada does.

[BJohnsonPP]

Some of the provisions have already kicked in, such as extending coverage to kids up to 26 years old instead of 21. The costs have been passed to us, of course. They explained it to us at the place wehre I work, but I don't remember exactly which parts have kicked in, and what the rise in costs are.

I'm aware that some of the provisions have kicked in that's why I said the FULL law doesn't kick in until 2014 (I believe). My question still stands though. Healthcare costs always rise. What part is Obamacare (if any part) and what part is the normal rise in healthcare (if any part) and/or what part is the insurance companies cranking up costs out of fear of the evils of Obamacare? Also, some say they have seen a rise while others say they haven't.

Regardless though, I do believe costs will go up for everyone when the full law kicks in. But the point of the law was NOT that costs would get lower than they are now or would never rise when it was in effect. The problem is that people place that idea on the law and complain that it's not living (or won't live) up to something it was never supposed to be. The point of it, whether there's an initial spike or not, was to hopefully level it off there (or at least slow it down significantly) as opposed to the constant increases we'd see without the law (I'm not arguing whether or not it would work, just pointing out what it's supposed to be).

So complaining about the cost of it right now is like complaining about the upfront cost of a hybrid car. That's just completely missing the point.   

Social security is also unconstitutional, but it is so established and so many people have a stake in it that it would be impossible and impractical to get rid of it now. Just because we have made concessions and given up some freedom doesn't mean that we should give them all up.

My point is, there's a precedent that can be argued.

I hate when people bring up "freedom" because they have this idealistic view of it and not a realistic one. The reality is that we give up freedom all the time and we're absolutely fine with it. We can't live in a civilized society without doing so. Most people are ignorant to this fact, so the freedoms they do give up are not viewed as freedoms at all. Them being ignorant as to what freedom is doesn't change the facts about it.

The conservative view is that social security is just the government telling us we can't take care of ourselves.... well, it was proven that we couldn't. It wasn't just some power grab by the government that came out of the blue. In the 1930's the poverty rate among the eldery was over 50% and now is around 10%. When we left it to ourselves we ended up tripping over old people in the street. When we handed it over to the government, we just visit granny in Florida now.

With that said though, I see no problem with at least looking into privatizing social security. I hate that people get demonized for even bringing it up. We know it works and it should exist in some form. I don't really see the reason for the government running it anymore though.

The guy with the hatchet wound probably will be getting his premiums paid for through medicaid. And besides that, if we are already paying for it anyway, how is Obamacare a solution? On top of that, the main way Obama intends to pay for all the increased costs is through the fines from the people who don't or can't buy health insurance.

You missed my point. From now until the end of time we're going to be paying for other people's healthcare because of the nature of what healthcare workers do. NOTHING will change this. Currently, the bulk of it is shouldered by those of us who pay for health insurance and pay taxes. There are those capable of paying for insurance and just don't. I said Obamacare takes this into account by increasing the amount of people paying into it. It spreads the burden (which will always be there) out, it doesn't relieve us of it. It is ALL of our responsibility because we all utilize this system at some point in time.

The guy with the hatchet wound, if he wasn't capable of paying, yes would probably be covered by medicaid. If, however, he was capable of paying, under Obamacare he would be paying ahead of time which would have money flowing through the system prior to his injury instead of having to chase him down to pay one bill.

[sdecaro558]

Regardless of whether or not it's struck down, the main problem won't be dealt with (rising costs). The cost of health care will still end up being too high, whether people are insured or not.

[falcon9]

Regardless of whether or not it's struck down, the main problem won't be dealt with (rising costs). The cost of health care will still end up being too high, whether people are insured or not.

That is correct.  An aspirin, for instance, does not cost $10 apiece unless the bill is being padded.

[bowrunner]

I hope it is overturned!! My son and son-in-law both work in private industry (electricians) and there Insurance went up drastically over the past 2 years (about 75 percent Higher) than in 2009, I thought this was suppose to help the lower/middle income!! There insurance went from about 4,500 a year to almost 7,500 a year in the process of 2 years, they don't make a big salary either (under 40k a yr). This heath care bill that was sold to the American people was a lie, this is why personal salaries are dropping like a rock, with everything else going up. This is just a way to pay for people that are on medicare/medicaid.

I agree 100%.  Obamacare is a debacle and is mostly set up for lots of special interests.

[patti4me]

I saw where someone said we should have the same healthcare as Canada does, but I disagree.  We were in Canada several years ago and asked some people about their healthcare and they told us how bad it was.  They can't get good healthcare which is why so many come to the U.S. for their surgeries, etc.  I hope they overturn the entire thing.  We need some reform maybe, but not this bunch of bull Obama is trying to force on us.

[sherryfan]

I do agree with inertia4, we should have similar health care law like Canada. I buy my mom personal health insurance. She is not over 65year old. After she has breast cancer no insurance want to accept her unless it cost thousands of dollar per month, and she moved to other state and stick her old insurance with her but she can't transfer the insurance to where she live now or or they will highly increase the premium rate. If you are healthy, all kind of insurance is fight for you, but when you are sick, no insurance is accept you. Why do we need health insurance? if we can't be sick at all. That's so unfair. Who want to be sick anyway.

[foxylady81]

I think it is bunch of crap. Why are they bushing it on us when everyone in congress it doesnt effect.

[falcon9]

I think it is bunch of crap. Why are they bushing it on us when everyone in congress it doesnt effect.

I just wanted you to know that I really liked your typo for 'pushing' when the Bushes did nothing but help the healthcare industry score record profits.

[brendy1990]

Our family falls in the cracks of healthcare. He does not get it on the job and I am a student and we make too much to qualify for Medicaid. It would be nice to have options.

we are in the same boat ,, we cant afford insurance on our own so we dont have any right now and dont qualify for state assisted health care , because we make to much money...go figure it sucks

[lindacmt]

The original HIPPA laws--before they were whittled down to nothing by the politicians--were intended to guarantee that EVERYONE be able to purchase health insurance, without preexisting conditions, at a reasonable cost. Congress whittled HIPPA down to nothing. What we ended up with not only did none of those things but increased the amount of paperwork and therefore the cost of health care. If HIPPA's original intent hadn't been destroyed by politics, we would probably not be dealing with Obama care right now, no matter how you feel about it.

[hawkeye3210]

Regardless though, I do believe costs will go up for everyone when the full law kicks in. But the point of the law was NOT that costs would get lower than they are now or would never rise when it was in effect. The problem is that people place that idea on the law and complain that it's not living (or won't live) up to something it was never supposed to be. The point of it, whether there's an initial spike or not, was to hopefully level it off there (or at least slow it down significantly) as opposed to the constant increases we'd see without the law (I'm not arguing whether or not it would work, just pointing out what it's supposed to be).

So complaining about the cost of it right now is like complaining about the upfront cost of a hybrid car. That's just completely missing the point.    

If the point  was to level health care costs, why not actually pass something that helps to control healthcare costs? The reform has to do with health insurance and making it accessible to everyone, which does nothing to lower the actual health care costs.

The guy with the hatchet wound probably will be getting his premiums paid for through medicaid. And besides that, if we are already paying for it anyway, how is Obamacare a solution? On top of that, the main way Obama intends to pay for all the increased costs is through the fines from the people who don't or can't buy health insurance.

You missed my point. From now until the end of time we're going to be paying for other people's healthcare because of the nature of what healthcare workers do. NOTHING will change this. Currently, the bulk of it is shouldered by those of us who pay for health insurance and pay taxes. There are those capable of paying for insurance and just don't. I said Obamacare takes this into account by increasing the amount of people paying into it. It spreads the burden (which will always be there) out, it doesn't relieve us of it. It is ALL of our responsibility because we all utilize this system at some point in time.

The guy with the hatchet wound, if he wasn't capable of paying, yes would probably be covered by medicaid. If, however, he was capable of paying, under Obamacare he would be paying ahead of time which would have money flowing through the system prior to his injury instead of having to chase him down to pay one bill.

Health insurance, or any type of insurance,  is designed to pool risks, not “spread the burden”.  We don’t all have the same risk factors (age, medical history, lifestyle factors, etc), therefore do not pay the same premiums. It’s no secret that smokers add more to the burden of health care costs than non-smokers. By requiring insurance companies to use community rating with everyone paying the same premium it is moving towards of system of spreading the burden, but we should probably stop calling it insurance. You can call it spreading the burden, but what we are really doing shifting the burden to the younger and healthier who are the most likely to see their premiums go up. The same group of people that are already hear about being burdened with student loan debt.

Also, hatchet guy example is a little misguided. There is still going to be a bill to be paid. Insurance won’t pay the full bill and if that guy hasn’t met his deductible, that insurance company isn’t to pay a dime. That’s still not helping the doctors.

[cneimsn]

I really don't know what to think.  Its all so difficult to understand. Is it a good thing or a bad thing? And whose telling the truth? Just totally confused!!

[BJohnsonPP]

@hawkeye3210

Didn't say it would work or wasn't flawed. Just said it took certain things into account to get more money flowing through the system. To answer your question about actually lowering costs, anything done to lower costs would just raise costs in some other area. Until that's figured out, you're just going to need more money.

As far as risk, paying the same premiums, bills still having to be paid, actually spreading the burden and it not being called insurance...yup. Despite what it may look like, I'm not so supportive of Obamacare but only because I don't think it goes far enough. We should cut out the middle man (the insurance companies) and head towards a single payer system. Just as I mentioned with social security, the healthcare our military and seniors get would be the precedent and you would just remove the restrictions to make it healthcare for all.

The argument against that is usually "My mothers' 2nd uncle's cousin died waiting to be seen in a [insert whatever country you want] hospital!" as if we have to pattern our system to be exactly like some other system without taking into account the flaws. Until someone explains to me to me the difference in running to a cop for help and running to a doctor for help (which you noticeably never touched), I don't see the justification for health insurance companies at all.

[albefish]

It should be overturned.