ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[BigBallinStalin]

why is it both sides think they make a logical argument, yet neither side hears anything.

I think part of that is due to the fact that people use their personal experiences to make up their arguments. Of course it's logical to them because they lived through it. When someone disagrees with their view, it must feel like they're being told that what they experienced is invalid.

good point. My #1 hangup is about COST or WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM. never can get through on that question. I am so eager to hear the answer you have no idea!

Me too, scotty. The conversation between Snowgun and the others was entertaining, but I have yet to see anyone really advance on your question

[MeDeFe]

What happens to those rejected by the insurance companies? Some get sick and die. No denying that. Others go onto Medicaid or other similar government programs.

What's to stop the state-run healthcare from doing the same?

Maybe the minor fact that healthy people contribute far more to the economy and GDP growth than sick people. The government keeping people healthy will generate a lot more money for them than they could make from withholding care.

So if you're senior citizen, I wonder if they'd care as much as current insurance companies. The thought may come to them: "why pay any longer for this guy? He's not contributing much."

I wonder how much costs the government would cover. Say if one is diagnosed with cancer at a young age (20s), how much would the government cover?

That would be where watchdog organizations, you, and everyone else who is allowed to vote comes into the equation, no?

btw, a minor detail about your first post in this row of quotes, "state-run healthcare" is the wrong term, "state-run insurance for healthcare" is far more accurate.

[BigBallinStalin]

So, bottomline, there seems to be a ton of questions which have the answer "not really sure, time will tell." There doesn't seem to be a concrete answer on the cost for each individual as well the as the cost for the company (and on later expected costs). That annual individual cost seems to be more of an educated guess.

Aside from costs, there seems to be more potential problems--foreseeable and not foreseeable, but many are still willing to take the risk.

Is this more or less what this thread provided us here?

[Snorri1234]

What happens to those rejected by the insurance companies? Some get sick and die. No denying that. Others go onto Medicaid or other similar government programs.

What's to stop the state-run healthcare from doing the same?

Maybe the minor fact that healthy people contribute far more to the economy and GDP growth than sick people. The government keeping people healthy will generate a lot more money for them than they could make from withholding care.

So if you're senior citizen, I wonder if they'd care as much as current insurance companies. The thought may come to them: "why pay any longer for this guy? He's not contributing much."

Except that old people vote.

Seriously a lot. Why do you think so few politicians try to do stuff about medicare?


And caring less about senior citizens than current insurance companies seems quite hard.

[BigBallinStalin]

What happens to those rejected by the insurance companies? Some get sick and die. No denying that. Others go onto Medicaid or other similar government programs.

What's to stop the state-run healthcare from doing the same?

Maybe the minor fact that healthy people contribute far more to the economy and GDP growth than sick people. The government keeping people healthy will generate a lot more money for them than they could make from withholding care.

So if you're senior citizen, I wonder if they'd care as much as current insurance companies. The thought may come to them: "why pay any longer for this guy? He's not contributing much."

Except that old people vote.

Seriously a lot. Why do you think so few politicians try to do stuff about medicare?


And caring less about senior citizens than current insurance companies seems quite hard.

Thanks for your time, Snorri. (*sincerely)

[Snorri1234]

Very good point. Too many people assume that because we are the odd system out there that there must be something wrong,

No they assume that because it's such a horribly fucked up system that there's something wrong.

Your continued insistance that there's nothing wrong is absurd.

and they blindly assume that it should be like what they know. But the way we roll (our methods in general) has been working pretty fucking good for the last 100 years, and history crowns us (in all around generality) as wholesale asskickers up to this point. It may be hard to accept the idea that we don't like things like the idea of 80% taxes. There are subtleties behind this that stifles our system. PERIOD, the proof is our economy and what we invent and produce. Strokes for different folks.
Yea, we COULD stop doing all the shit we do, stop selling to the world, stop developing tech, but that would be cutting of our nose to spite our face. Both the US and other countries get benefits from the gradient. We just don't see any reason to conform to another system, since we don't believe it works. We can argue about quality and such till the cows come home.

You seem to have absolutely no idea about the rest of the world. In fact you seem to have very little idea about your own country and it's economic actions in the world.

The funny part is the dutch USED to be the biggest capitalist asskickers in the world! It was a period of high culture and good standard of living of the times. What happened? (not saying it went to shit, but it ain't what it used to be). Some here in the US KNOW what happened (socialism) and we don't want to go that direction, because IN OUR EYES (you may think it's fine) it didn't work out so well.

What happened?

Do you have even the slightest idea of international rankings in GDP?

Seriously, socialism? Do you even know anything about the dutch economy? Do you in fact know anything about economics at all?

[PLAYER57832]

So, bottomline, there seems to be a ton of questions which have the answer "not really sure, time will tell." There doesn't seem to be a concrete answer on the cost for each individual as well the as the cost for the company (and on later expected costs). That annual individual cost seems to be more of an educated guess.

Aside from costs, there seems to be more potential problems--foreseeable and not foreseeable, but many are still willing to take the risk.

Is this more or less what this thread provided us here?

The Obama administration has said they want a "budget nuetral" option. No one can talk specifically about costs, because nothing is yet set.

Here are some ideas being floated. Who knows which will prevail (likely none of them!).

1. Increased taxes on soda pop and other "non-food" foods.
Benefit -- moves people toward a healthier lifestyle
Negatives -- probably will harm poor people most (unless you consider limiting their ability to purchase these items a positive -- due to health benefits), likely won't provide enough money, particularly in the long term. (either tax will be so high it will truly inhibit purchases and thus limit income potential or it will be low and therefore not collect enough money). Also, will place a burden on various businesses.


2. Healthier people, people getting care in a more timely manner and not waiting until they have true emergencies.

Benefits -- very real on all fronts. People WILL be healthier, mostly will seek out care earliers, etc. In the long term, costs will be cheaper overall.
Negatives -- a lot of people already have illnesses compounded by poor medical care. Ironically, they will likely form a surge of people seeking help and initially boost costs. Benefits/cost savings will take time to come. Also, as people are healthier, they will live longer. So, there is a potential trade-off. We may save on care earlier in life, but have greater costs later.

3. Extra taxes on the wealthy. Take various forms.
Justification -- the justification is twofold. One, they make more and can better afford the extra tax. Two, they have benefitted disproportionatly from previous tax breaks, still benefit more from all sorts of social services, etc. This is, of course, debated but it is the argument.
Benefits-- more money from just a few people
Negatives -- Those few people create the most jobs and will simply leave, taking jobs with them. (again, highly debated)


4. Curb waste/fraud/frivolous lawsuits. (various plans)

Benefits -- obvious.
Negatives -- hard to achieve, takes time, may not really provide the savings needed



There are likely more ideas out there, but those are the ones I have heard about.

[Snorri1234]

2. Healthier people, people getting care in a more timely manner and not waiting until they have true emergencies.

Benefits -- very real on all fronts. People WILL be healthier, mostly will seek out care earliers, etc. In the long term, costs will be cheaper overall.
Negatives -- a lot of people already have illnesses compounded by poor medical care. Ironically, they will likely form a surge of people seeking help and initially boost costs. Benefits/cost savings will take time to come. Also, as people are healthier, they will live longer. So, there is a potential trade-off. We may save on care earlier in life, but have greater costs later.

Still will be better than the current situation where you have people who can't afford preventative care so wait untill it's a medical emergency, go to the hospital and die or live but rack up huge bills anyway which they certainly can't afford so those costs are put on the taxpayer and the people who do have insurance.

Reminds me of that time Jay claimed that doctors/hospitals simply lose the costs when a patient doesn't pay instead of getting those costs from other sources.

[PLAYER57832]

2. Healthier people, people getting care in a more timely manner and not waiting until they have true emergencies.

Benefits -- very real on all fronts. People WILL be healthier, mostly will seek out care earliers, etc. In the long term, costs will be cheaper overall.
Negatives -- a lot of people already have illnesses compounded by poor medical care. Ironically, they will likely form a surge of people seeking help and initially boost costs. Benefits/cost savings will take time to come. Also, as people are healthier, they will live longer. So, there is a potential trade-off. We may save on care earlier in life, but have greater costs later.

Still will be better than the current situation where you have people who can't afford preventative care so wait untill it's a medical emergency, go to the hospital and die or live but rack up huge bills anyway which they certainly can't afford so those costs are put on the taxpayer and the people who do have insurance.

Reminds me of that time Jay claimed that doctors/hospitals simply lose the costs when a patient doesn't pay instead of getting those costs from other sources.

I was not trying to argue any one point, just list the various reasoning I have heard.

[spurgistan]

2. Healthier people, people getting care in a more timely manner and not waiting until they have true emergencies.

Benefits -- very real on all fronts. People WILL be healthier, mostly will seek out care earliers, etc. In the long term, costs will be cheaper overall.
Negatives -- a lot of people already have illnesses compounded by poor medical care. Ironically, they will likely form a surge of people seeking help and initially boost costs. Benefits/cost savings will take time to come. Also, as people are healthier, they will live longer. So, there is a potential trade-off. We may save on care earlier in life, but have greater costs later.

Still will be better than the current situation where you have people who can't afford preventative care so wait untill it's a medical emergency, go to the hospital and die or live but rack up huge bills anyway which they certainly can't afford so those costs are put on the taxpayer and the people who do have insurance.

Reminds me of that time Jay claimed that doctors/hospitals simply lose the costs when a patient doesn't pay instead of getting those costs from other sources.

I was not trying to argue any one point, just list the various reasoning I have heard.

Well, you missed the revenue mechanism behind the Senate bill, for one thing. The Senate (Ron Wyden, in particular) says that we ought to start taxing "cadillac" health care plans as if they were income. And, despite my hatred of the US Senate as a legislative body, this is one thing that would make the House bill much better than an excise tax on the rich. Which we should have too. But a lot of the "curve-bending" on health care prices would come from lowering unnecessary medical costs, which cadillac plans promote.

[PLAYER57832]

True, though that is sort of in the "tax the rich" bit. (there are a lot of plans out there).

One other question, though is what of the cost if we do nothing?

People say they "may lose employer health insurance".
BUT -- a lot of small businesses are already cutting it out or simply not offering it.
health care is one big reason why many employers hire temporary or part-time employees more than permanent employees.
Those employers that do offer insurance are offering lower grade policies.
Those policies are such that while they meet the legal minimums, they essentially force people into either doing without or enrolling in Medicaid.

SO, the truth is that right now, more and more people are being forced onto TRUE public plans -- Medicaid and Medicare.

[Backglass]

TRUE public plans -- Medicaid and Medicare.

This little fact is the one that is always overlooked...those are fully socialized programs.

"WE ARE NOT SOCIALISTS! WE DO NOT WANT THE GOVERNMENT RUNNING HEALTHCARE! ...but don't touch my Medicare." - Average 65+ Teabagger

[PLAYER57832]

Christianity is about charity, or have you forgotten that basic tenet?

1) Is it charity when I hand a homeless person $5 and say, "Get loaded."

2) Is it charity when I sit down the same man and chat about whatever for an hour or two?

Just handing out money is not what Christ or the Bible dictates, but when that excuse is used to claim that my husband (who works over 40 hours a week at his paid job, PLUS being a volunteer fire fighter of over 20 years) has no right to health care that would allow him to take our son to the hospital without putting us in serious debt -- debt that, if I were not such a tightwad as to do without any new clothes for 7 years, buy all my son's clothes at yard sales, grow my own food, can etc....

would have meant we would lose our house.

THAT is what this is about!

Right, but you're just one particular case. Not everyone's situation is like yours. In your case, seeing that he's helped the city with being a firefighter, he should receive benefits, but many people don't have that claim to justify their receiving socialized healthcare.

Perhaps, there should be limits on who gets the healthcare and who doesn't, but how would that be enforced? No idea. Maybe providing proof that one is busting their ass yet still not doing so well, but there's complications with that.

I'd say, given your circumstances, you're entitled to it. However, a lot of people simply aren't, which is why many people perceive socialized healthcare to be unfair--a mandatory handout which is provided by their own money.

Why should others be forced to pay for another person's healthcare? (Charitable, religious beliefs aside.)

To get back to this very good point, here is the truly big irony.

If you want to talk about those who "deserve", versus those who do not, most people would put the non-working "layabouts" who CAN work there. EXCEPT most of those HAVE MEDICAID.


The truly uninsuredare mostly people who work more than one part-time job in order to support themselves. THEY are working, just becuase its not for 1 employer, they don't get insurance. You also find a good number of people who either did work, are still working or are married to people who work full-time, BUT who are denied coverage by insurers who don't feel they can make enough profits from them becuase of pre-existing conditions, etc.

If you look at the far greater roles of underinsured (this is where we fell before), then you see load of people such as my husband (and most of our community) who are working a lower wage jobs. ALL of those people pay taxes, pay for insurance (often pay heavily, despite the dismal coverage). Far worse, a lot of those people are actually in the "we don't want socialized medicine" group, BUT only because they don't either know how limited their insurance truly is OR don't understand the plans actually put forward by Congress.

So, the "undeserved" do get insurance for themselves and their kids. The rest -- we PAY , but we get almost nothing for our money.

[Phatscotty]

TRUE public plans -- Medicaid and Medicare.

This little fact is the one that is always overlooked...those are fully socialized programs.

"WE ARE NOT SOCIALISTS! WE DO NOT WANT THE GOVERNMENT RUNNING HEALTHCARE! ...but don't touch my Medicare." - Average 65+ Teabagger

yes, they know what they are taking is evil, they always feared medicare would grow into what it has become, only paying doctors 70-80% thereby more and more doctors shun medicare. Give everyone under a certain age their own retirement account, we will swallow the bitter medicine and work thru social security, and then we can lay that socialist stepping stone to rest, instead of letting it swallow the country

[PopeBenXVI]

Despite the majority of Americans not wanting this bill, our corrupt government is going to force it on us. So much for a "representative" Gov. We have no representation. The only way this country will turn around fast enough now is if some Islamic terrorist crashes a plane into the House of Rep and wipes out 90% of both parties and a ton of average Americans jump in to take their place. Even then we would need Obama to slip into a coma for the next 3 years.

Say goodbye to America as our immigrant forefathers designed it to be and hello to a new kind of race and class warfare propagated by the Gov along with anti Christian propaganda, political correctness, massive intentional deficits, legitimization of illegal drugs and sexual deviancy and promiscuity. Welcome to the fall of Rome.

[notyou2]

Geez Pope, the Christian thing to do would be to turn the other cheek.

[PLAYER57832]

Despite the majority of Americans not wanting this bill, our corrupt government is going to force it on us.

And be sure to keep TELLING everyone that this is "not what the majority want", because else they might actually go out and listen to THEIR neighbors and friends ..

Say goodbye to America as our immigrant forefathers designed it to be and hello to a new kind of race and class warfare propagated by the Gov along with anti Christian propaganda, political correctness, massive intentional deficits, legitimization of illegal drugs and sexual deviancy and promiscuity. Welcome to the fall of Rome.

Using the name of Christ does not mean you represent him.

[PopeBenXVI]

Geez Pope, the Christian thing to do would be to turn the other cheek.

And the atheist thing to do would be to deny any of it as reality

[PopeBenXVI]

Despite the majority of Americans not wanting this bill, our corrupt government is going to force it on us.

And be sure to keep TELLING everyone that this is "not what the majority want", because else they might actually go out and listen to THEIR neighbors and friends ..

Say goodbye to America as our immigrant forefathers designed it to be and hello to a new kind of race and class warfare propagated by the Gov along with anti Christian propaganda, political correctness, massive intentional deficits, legitimization of illegal drugs and sexual deviancy and promiscuity. Welcome to the fall of Rome.

Using the name of Christ does not mean you represent him.

Ok, this is not what the majority wants

[Phatscotty]

It's all for SEIU.....everyone else be damned. In the words of SEIU Prez...."We know where you live"

[Timminz]

legitimization of illegal drugs and sexual deviancy and promiscuity. Welcome to the fall of Rome.

I'm totally calling the next rave I promote, 'The Fall Of Rome".

[notyou2]

Call me, I wanna go to.....sounds exciting

[Phatscotty]

Sooo, We get the health care reform. Raising taxes, cutting medicare, and making HC less available for ALL, so.....that......we can cover a portion of people that dont pay for health insurance?

[notyou2]

I think they set it all up just so that Phatscotty would have to pay for these damn freeloaders

[Phatscotty]

I think they set it all up just so that Phatscotty would have to pay for these damn freeloaders

I already have problems keeping my own payments. No thanks