Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Larry Nelson
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2013 - 04:11pm PT
|
jghedge wrote;
Again, why should people sign up for ObamaCare when they don't have to?
Excellent question. My ex-wife was just dropped from Aetna (she said they are pulling out of California)and she is feeling scared and pissed. She was happy with what she had and she is not poor. Will she be forced to sign up for ACA, or to pay far higher premiums somewhere else?
I guess you could blame it on the insurance. But why all of a sudden are they pulling out of California? I'm not smart enough to figure out all the regulations ACA is imposing on the healthcare industry, but I see results and how it impacts many. It is not good.
Anytime Congress exempts themselves from a policy they proclaim is great for the unwashed, I am skeptical of their motives and honesty.
You are free to have faith in their motives and honesty.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2013 - 04:39pm PT
|
Yes, let's shift the debate from the Affordable [sic] Care Act to Sarah Palin. I guess I'd try that too if I had to defend a party and President who chose to spend all of their political capital on the ACA. That act works so well that the President has used his non-enumerated powers to suspend it for certain segments of society and exempt those favorably connected from part of the requirements. Meanwhile, most premiums increased as a direct result of this folly.
More damning, the administration knew since 2010 that implementation of the ACA would result in between 40% and 65% of current health plan customers losing their coverage, and being forced into more expensive plans. Despite this, the President continued to say until a few weeks ago "If you like your coverage, you can keep it."
At least you have the Tea Party ready to divert attention from this fiasco.
John
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2013 - 04:48pm PT
|
Yes, let's shift the debate from the Affordable [sic] Care Act to Sarah Palin. I guess I'd try that too if I had to defend a party and President who chose to spend all of their political capital on the ACA...
It wasn't the president or his party who just erased all of their political capital by shutting down the federal government over the ACA. That would be the Republican party--currently less popular that hemorrhoids and root canals.
Curt
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2013 - 05:25pm PT
|
You know exactly why some policies have gone up in price - it's because insurers are now actually required to provide an adequate level of coverage. The inexpensive policies that everyone "lost" were just ripoffs. People just thought they had insurance because they were paying the premiums...
Well, it's anti-American and socialist to protect people from being ripped off. You know, because it's bad for business. How dare Obama and his jackbooted thugs...
Curt
|
|
doughnutnational
Gym climber
its nice here in the spring
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2013 - 05:29pm PT
|
Is there anyone out there who did not their premiums rise alot almost every year even before Obama Care? The problem as mentioned is trying to change the delivery method for health insurance while keeping obscene profits intact for those who provide no health care.
|
|
Larry Nelson
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2013 - 05:34pm PT
|
jghedge wrote:
And this assertion is given the full 3-Pinocchio, Flat-Out Lie rating by the Post:
I stand corrected. A one year waiver for certain groups. As I have mentioned, I have a life beyond watching the news and I don't spend a lot of time trying to figure out a very complicated issue. Kudos to you for knowing so much.
So as far as my other point: The presidents statement, "If you like your coverage, you can keep it" evidently does not apply to my ex-wife's plan. I hope that the "non-profit" in the exchange is cheaper than her "for profit" plan that she liked, but I'm not placing any bets based on what politicians say. All she wanted was catastrophic coverage so she wouldn't lose her house, but she may now have to pay for services she doesn't think she needs. As I said, she is pissed. She is also non-political.
I still remain skeptical of the wonderfulness of it all, but I admire your faith and passion in totally buying into it. I hope it works out. It's just not looking good so far.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2013 - 05:39pm PT
|
All she wanted was catastrophic coverage
With that type of medical coverage, what happens when/if you get cancer ? If the old coverage did not cover cancer or similar who pays for the care if you do get one of these tpyes of diseases?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2013 - 05:59pm PT
|
Since you asked, Dave, here's a post from a now-deleted thread that I made in 2009 which contains what I think we should have done:
"[Jul 29, 2009 - 03:15pm PT]
The effect of malpractice litigation on health care costs goes far beyond the costs of premiums. While it is beyond serious dispute that laws such as California's MICRA laws result in lower malpractice premiums, they do nothing to affect the "legal defense" practice of medicine.
I know a great many health care providers of all varieties. My wife is a nurse. Our best man is a doctor. My main climbing partner is married to a nurse practitioner. Virtually every health care worker I know claims that they need to perform procedures, prescribe medication, or run tests that the patient probably would choose to forgo, if the patient were making the payments directly, but which the professional cannot forgo without fear of being sued.
At least in California, if a doctor gets sued for malpractice, he or she cannot settle the case without it being recorded as a blot on their record. This forces them to spend untold amounts of time and agony defending claims that are usually spurious. A great many of those suits allege that the doc failed to do everything possible to treat the patient. This provides a powerful incentive to maximize, not optimize health care.
As I stated much earlier in this thread, and which no one has refuted, the main reason we spend more on medical care is that we get more medical care.
There are numerous problems with the current healthcare system that I believe government involvement could make better. Since the Dems on this thread are crying for a solution, let me offer these:
1. For coverage of uninsured patients, something in the nature of the VA would be a good option. Particularly as the population of veterans decreases as the generations subject to the draft die out, we should integrate that system into a general system available to those who want it -- but there should be some cost. Otherwise, there is no incentive to use it wisely.
2. There is no reason why health coverage should be dependent on employment. The tie between health care coverage and employment has three historic roots:
(a) Henry Ford wanted his workers to stay healthy, and thought it was worth his money to include it as a benefit;
(b) Health benefits did not count as wages or salaries in World War II. It was thus a way for businesses to obtain workers by raising their return from employment without running afoul of wage controls; and
(c) Health benefits paid by employers are not taxed to employees.
The disadvantage, of course, is that health benefits become an impediment to changing employment, and compound the economic difficulty of losing or leaving a job. I suggest that we eliminate the employee's tax break on employer-paid health care, and replace it with a deduction for medical expenses, including medical insurance -- without any requirement that these expenditures exceed a certain percentage of income. This will provide an incentive to have your own insurance, rather than be on the dole with my VA For All plan, above. In addition, it will provide some connection between the consumer of health care and the cost of same.
3. We should do something to restore health insurance to its role as insurance. It currently covers several things (birth and birth control, to cite two contradictory examples) that are not traditionally insurable risks. I rather suspect maintenance-type health care would be cheaper if we paid for it the way we pay for car repair.
4. We need tort reform that respects freedom of contract. A doctor should not feel compelled to provide the very best treatment if it costs 100 times as much as the next best treatment, and is .001% better. Virtually all health care recipients have sufficient intelligence to make those sorts of decisions themselves.
5. We should have used some of that pork-barrel money (disguised as "stimulus" money) to build and staff a lot of new med schools.
This is just an outline, but I think it's far better than giving the government control over 18% of American GDP.
OK. I've got my blindfold on, and they've given me my cigarette. Fire away!"
John
|
|
Larry Nelson
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2013 - 08:16pm PT
|
Dave Kos wrote:
If we had a functional congress, they could introduce legislation that would fix these problems and make the system even better.
Dave,
I think that the reason this issue is so contentious is that it was passed on a straight party line vote using a sneaky parliamentary procedure to bypass the super majority normally required.
All major social legislation ever passed has had strong bi-partisan support and was then accepted by the vast majority of citizens. You may despise the other party, but you have to live with them.
Gridlock usually occurs without compromise. Democracy is messy.
Democrats (and unfortunately the rest of us) are reaping the "fruits" of their own hyper partisanship, and I'm no f&%$#@g republican.
Pass it before you know what's in it? How is that intelligent?
I like the solutions that JEleazarian offered up. As for now, we are into the ACA. I hope it works out, but I remain skeptical for now.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2013 - 08:24pm PT
|
TWO MILLION AMERICANS WILL LOSE THEIR POLICIES AND HAVE TO GET A NEW ONE!!!!!1111
In other words, less than 1% of the population will have fewer choices in their coverage options. And for many of that 1%, the choice they wanted may have actually been substandard. \
(It's more like 8-10% of the insured population)
That's only because employer group plans were unconstitutionally and unilaterally exempted by Barry for another year in defiance of the law as written.
A year from now the rest of us get f*#ked!
Unless of course you are a member of the ruling political class and are therefore exempt.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2013 - 08:46pm PT
|
Oh just stop it..
all this emphasis on "tort reform" as a real smart "solution" to the massive problems in America's healthcare system is....laughably partisan and hugely, hugely irrelevant to fixing the problems
"partisan" because JohnE, being someone who votes Republican, has it in his head that doctors' personal income is so touchingly limited by the amount of medical malpractice they pay,
but more importantly John's hidden agenda is his contention that Lawyers who represent patients who have a grievance with their doctor or surgeon are supported in those efforts because they contribute money to Democratic politicos
this angers John, apparently because giving money to politicians who you support is, i don't know, wrong or sleazy or something, never mind John's own strong support for the righteousness of the Supreme Court's decision of allowing full freedom of "speech" in the Citizens United decision
let us be clear, limiting awards to patients for successful lawsuits is chicken feed, period
tell us John, what is your party's "plan" to expand healthcare to tens of millions without it?
tell us how you will eliminate denying healthcare for almost 50% who DO have childhood Asthma or any of the other many many "pre existing conditions"
tell us sbout your party's plan to even try to rein in the rapidly rising premiums costs,
and all without expanding the pools by adding many more healthy payers
your opposition to the ACA is purely partisan, just like Cragmans, and Andersons, etc etc
not racist opposition because you would oppose it if even Hillary were President
you oppose because at the very core of "conservatism" is fear, fear of changing the status quo
|
|
John Duffield
Mountain climber
New York
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2013 - 09:34pm PT
|
He is an embarrassment to our nation, and will go down in history as one of the most destructive administrations ever known.
Not so sure of this. The deficit is down to the lowest since before 2008.
In the long run, blowing a ton on a corrupt website procural, won't be as important.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2013 - 01:16am PT
|
but more importantly John's hidden agenda is his contention that Lawyers who represent patients who have a grievance with their doctor or surgeon are supported in those efforts because they contribute money to Democratic politicos
No. I simply think contract, rather than tort, law forms a better basis for rational health care.
Buzzer .,
You got caught in some right wing propaganda lie their brother
We all knew what the President said, and continued to say for the last five years: If you like your health plan, you can keep it. They was a straight up lie. No amount of spin can change that.
John
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2013 - 08:11am PT
|
Don't fret Boehner , Cruz and lynch mob are working on a better plan to save you money on health insurance...Your happy meal coupons are redeemable at all blue shield death panels...
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2013 - 01:00pm PT
|
It's good to have a healthy dose of scientific skepticism when it comes to complicated political solutions that politicians exempt themselves from.
Larry, I assume you are not a complete dunce. Perhaps you can cite that provision that exempts politicians?
Perhaps it is the same section that exempts them from wearing motorcycle helmets? Or having to ride in child carseats? Or from laws against sleeping under bridges?
yep, I think it is EXACTLY those sections.....
|
|
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2013 - 01:29pm PT
|
Obama = Glitch
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2013 - 02:04pm PT
|
Tarzan writes:
"I don't have insurance and have not forever. I guess I'll have to kneel to the taxcollector and pay the fine."
Maybe not.
The way I understand it, the IRS can only collect on the fine if they owe you a refund. There's no line on your income tax form requiring either proof of Obamacare participation or $95 in the red column.
Set up your tax withholding so instead of getting a refund you owe money at the end of the year, and you'll duck the Obama tax-fine-penalty.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2013 - 03:37pm PT
|
"We all knew what the President said, and continued to say for the last five years: If you like your health plan, you can keep it. They was a straight up lie. No amount of spin can change that."
The quintessential response to this:
In other words, "we lied."
John
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2013 - 03:51pm PT
|
I agree, the "you can keep your plan" messaging was poor. But is the fact that it is not exactly true really meaningful?
Any given year a pretty fair percentage of people have to change their plans simply because employers/insurance companies change the plans. So a lot of people are already seeing this. And almost everybody has been seeing price increases as well. So it's not as if the ACA is suddenly causing increases in a system that had been stable or going down.
The website thing is a problem...that should have been much more well-executed. As to whether the rest of it is a problem, I'd argue that it is too early to tell. It was an effort to do something to try to fix a broken system. You threw out a decent list earlier in this thread John...it would be great to see a few elected GOP folks actually propose changes instead of just trying to shoot down the ACA.
Beyond that, one only has to look at this site to see how broken things are. On almost any given day, there's a thread on the front page appealing for help with covering someone's medical costs. I don't mind helping folks out, and I've contributed to a few of these. It shows we're a good community. But it shouldn't have to be anywhere near as common as it seems to be.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Oct 31, 2013 - 03:56pm PT
|
What do you mean by "not exactly true," Steve? The true statement would be, Under the ACA, if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance unless the ACA won't let you keep your insurance."
In other words, we make no promises.
John
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!