Health Care law

[hawkeye3210]

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.

That wouldn't be eliminating the middle man. With medicare, the federal government is just taking the role of the insurance company.  It’s also not the great of an insurance policy either, which is why a lot of people chose to supplement it through private insurance companies. The health insurance our military gets is not a whole lot different than a lot plans provided by other employers in the private sector. It still goes through private insurance companies, with the employer (government in this case) paying for 75% of the premiums and the employee picking up the remaining 25%.

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.

As long as a patient is responsible for any portion of the bill there is always going to be an incentive for pooling of risks, creating a market for insurance, and a justification for why insurance companies exist. When comparing healthcare to cops and law enforcement, there are some key differences. For starters, law enforcement is funded by the local and state governments, not the federal government. There is also no real way to attribute those costs to individuals, which isn't true with healthcare. Again, when there is cost to the individual there is going to be market for insurance.

Also, it is not like that person screaming for a doctor isn't going to get help. Hospitals are already obligated by law to see patients regardless of their ability to pay.

[BJohnsonPP]

That wouldn't be eliminating the middle man. With medicare, the federal government is just taking the role of the insurance company.  It’s also not the great of an insurance policy either, which is why a lot of people chose to supplement it through private insurance companies. The health insurance our military gets is not a whole lot different than a lot plans provided by other employers in the private sector. It still goes through private insurance companies, with the employer (government in this case) paying for 75% of the premiums and the employee picking up the remaining 25%.

You're taking middle man too literal(ly?). I just mean THAT particular middle man that has to make a certain amount of profit. Also you're determining how great or not it would be based on what we and others already have in place. As I mentioned before, it doesn't have to be 100% patterned after something we already know.

As long as a patient is responsible for any portion of the bill there is always going to be an incentive for pooling of risks, creating a market for insurance, and a justification for why insurance companies exist...There is also no real way to attribute those costs to individuals, which isn't true with healthcare. Again, when there is cost to the individual there is going to be market for insurance.

Again, your assuming it has to exist in some way like its current incarnation. You're at a greater risk of needing the police in a bad neighborhood, yet what you pay in taxes is not based on risk factors but on your salary, no matter where you live. Make that the same for healthcare. If you do want to factor in individual risk though, tax the smoker instead of the cigarettes which currently only pushes people to buy them off the street illegally.

When comparing healthcare to cops and law enforcement, there are some key differences. For starters, law enforcement is funded by the local and state governments, not the federal government.

It's not a "key" factor because I don't care if it's state or federal. If it works better locally, do it locally. If it works better federally, do it that way. Whatever works best IS best.  

Also, it is not like that person screaming for a doctor isn't going to get help. Hospitals are already obligated by law to see patients regardless of their ability to pay.

That's my entire point. They have the same type of job as a cop. There's no such thing as an off-duty police officer and the same goes for doctors. You have to look at healthcare workers the same way you look at cops. They need to be in place no matter what and therefore should not be connected to a for-profit business.

[hawkeye3210]

The US. Government is nearly $16 trillion in debt, more than any country in the world. What I am not assuming is that that same government is going to come up with some magical cure when history tells me otherwise. But even if you want to pay for it through taxes, gross income tax collections in 2010 were around $1.45 trillion, while overall healthcare expenditures were around $2.4 trillion. You’re talking about almost tripling taxes.

[BJohnsonPP]

Not really. You're already paying for healthcare. The only thing that changes is who you're paying it to. So the name changes on your paystub but what you're paying doesn't. In fact, you may pay less because the government doesn't need to profit from it in the same way insurance companies do. Also, get rid of the Bush tax cuts for everyone which, according to the CBO, is the biggest contributor to our deficit, and we can go back to those horrible Clinton years when we had a surplus. Get rid of loopholes as well so everyone is actually paying what they're supposed to and we wouldn't constantly be falling short.

Easier said than done, but I'm talking about what I think should be done, not what anyone will actually do. Whether or not it would work, I don't know. If I did, I wouldn't be here trying to make money off of posting in forums.

[hawkeye3210]

I'm not paying $8K a year for my healthcare, which would be my theoretical tax increase if you were to triple it. That would actually be about an 800% increase for me personally. I'd say that is a little more than just switching who I am writing the check to. Sure, the government doesn't need to profit, but you can't ignore the obvious increases either. Those expenditures were when individuals were responsible for paying, but if the government is paying the tab, there's going to be a few more visits to the doctor and a lot less of putting off medical procedures. I know I would be making a few more visits for every little cold.

[southernhorizons]

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.

So, since we will be paying for everybody else's health care either way, AND cost will still always rise, what is the whole point of Obamacare? It obviously is not the "reform" that a lot of people think it is.
Maybe you are Ok with giving up even more freedom, since we've already lost so much, but I'm NOT! That is exactly the way all the tyrants of the past, such as Stalin and Hitler, got into power.
I agree that Social security should be privatized. But unfortunately, that'll probably never happen, because it is an unsustainable program, since they pay out more than they take in.

[BJohnsonPP]

So, since we will be paying for everybody else's health care either way, AND cost will still always rise, what is the whole point of Obamacare? It obviously is not the "reform" that a lot of people think it is.
Maybe you are Ok with giving up even more freedom, since we've already lost so much, but I'm NOT! That is exactly the way all the tyrants of the past, such as Stalin and Hitler, got into power.
I agree that Social security should be privatized. But unfortunately, that'll probably never happen, because it is an unsustainable program, since they pay out more than they take in.

You clearly just quoted what I wrote but it's not possible that you actually read it and comprehended it because you wouldn't be asking these questions that were already addressed. You also clearly didn't understand what I was saying about freedom either. Actually read the full back and forth between me and hawkeye3210 then get back to me. Thanks.

[Joeyramone]

If it isn't defeated, it will definitely be the end of the US as we remembered it.  Put aside the debate about how costs/administration of the program will effect the individual or the economy... all that is secondary to the fact that this will be the first time it is a law that the US Government can force an individual to buy a good or a service without actually engaging in an activity save breathing.

If this is allowed to stand and the individual mandate becomes law, what is the next thing that we will be required to buy?  The US Constitution is so abundantly clear on this issue.  If the Supreme Court rules for this terrible law, then we are lost as a free people and the government will be our masters.

[robin1128]

I hope it don't pass

[BJohnsonPP]

If it isn't defeated, it will definitely be the end of the US as we remembered it.  Put aside the debate about how costs/administration of the program will effect the individual or the economy... all that is secondary to the fact that this will be the first time it is a law that the US Government can force an individual to buy a good or a service without actually engaging in an activity save breathing.

If this is allowed to stand and the individual mandate becomes law, what is the next thing that we will be required to buy?  The US Constitution is so abundantly clear on this issue.  If the Supreme Court rules for this terrible law, then we are lost as a free people and the government will be our masters.

  You pay for social security, you pay for medicare, you pay for your local police, you pay for the military, etc..., etc. The only difference is those are called taxes and this is called a mandate. If they removed the age requirement from medicare, this would just be called medicare for all. If they didn't call it a mandate and just called it a tax, it would just be a new tax. Just stop it with the overboard nonsense.

[BJohnsonPP]

Well, they upheld the law. The individual mandate was upheld. Chief Justice Roberts was the difference.

[sigmapi1501]

this will be the first time it is a law that the US Government can force an individual to buy a good or a service without actually engaging in an activity save breathing.

Not true.  It's not a condition of breathing. It's a condition of working/earning.  If you are indigent, the gov't can't make you work. You have the choice to not earn money. I understand that you took your marching orders from fox news and this is "your" rebuttal to the car insurance argument.  However, if you make the CHOICE to earn a living, you have to pay for health care.  NEXT?

[hudsonmike09]

I just can't believe the supreme court upheld it today. They said that congress could'nt impose fined for not buying insurance so they're calling it a tax now. I really don't see any difference. It's still a penalty no matter what you call it.

[sigmapi1501]

I just can't believe the supreme court upheld it today. They said that congress could'nt impose fined for not buying insurance so they're calling it a tax now. I really don't see any difference. It's still a penalty no matter what you call it.

You can be "fined" with no income. Example; you are unemployed and get a speeding ticket.
You cannot be taxed with no income.  Now you may see the difference.

[squirrelgirl44]

This is great for people (like me) that have a pre-existing condition. Granted, now I have a job with good insurance, but before I got denied time after time because of my MS. FRUSTRATING.