89 replies to this topic

[Ark]

The USA spends around 8 trillion dollars on the military we outspend all nations put together on this we have enough extra money when we stop trying to police the world to give everyone truly free health care, none of the Obombya crap.

[Luminosity]

I don't want to burden struggling people in their twenties to pay for Western medical care for me that I don't even believe in.

Sthira, you're pretty naive. Obamacare will work like the website does, or like Medicaid does. Obama breaks more promises in a day than Franklin Roosevelt ever made in his life. Wake up, girl.

Edited by Luminosity, 03 December 2013 - 06:31 AM.

[sthira]

I don't want to burden struggling people in their twenties to pay for Western medical care for me that I don't even believe in.

Sthira, you're pretty naive. Obamacare will work like the website does, or like Medicaid does. Obama breaks more promises in a day than Franklin Roosevelt ever made in his life. Wake up, girl.

Healthcare.gov has had some technical issues, so not everyone is happy. Yet you can't please all the people all the time. I feel like much of the whining about technical issues with the website has been spread to create news stories. There have been far more success stories about folks signing up than what's reported. Many Americans have used the site successfully and did everything from apply to enroll in a plan in less than 15 minutes. Many Americans report better deals and better plans.

[Ben]

I don't want to burden struggling people in their twenties to pay for Western medical care for me that I don't even believe in.

Sthira, you're pretty naive. Obamacare will work like the website does, or like Medicaid does. Obama breaks more promises in a day than Franklin Roosevelt ever made in his life. Wake up, girl.

Healthcare.gov has had some technical issues, so not everyone is happy. Yet you can't please all the people all the time. I feel like much of the whining about technical issues with the website has been spread to create news stories. There have been far more success stories about folks signing up than what's reported. Many Americans have used the site successfully and did everything from apply to enroll in a plan in less than 15 minutes. Many Americans report better deals and better plans.

It's amazing how intellectual pride allows us to ignore so much that's obvious.

[sthira]

It's amazing how intellectual pride allows us to ignore so much that's obvious.

Well, in my case maybe it's less about intellectual pride and more about hopeless idealism. I just think we need to shift the healthcare debate. Let's focus on how all people everywhere should be as free from disease, suffering and pain as possible. What would this take? How may we shift the debate in order to address the need to end useless suffering [i]now[i/]?

[Ben]

It's amazing how intellectual pride allows us to ignore so much that's obvious.

Well, in my case maybe it's less about intellectual pride and more about hopeless idealism. I just think we need to shift the healthcare debate. Let's focus on how all people everywhere should be as free from disease, suffering and pain as possible. What would this take? How may we shift the debate in order to address the need to end useless suffering [i]now[i/]?

That's a good an noble goal and, given almost unlimited resources, it would be possible.

What needs to be looked at honestly is: Can the market place provide the fairest option for risk spreading? Are governments and committees always corruptible / corrupt? Do government run programs waste? Are they used in a way where the main goal is the political advancement of the group that proposed the policy rather than a sincere desire to help people? Can a program of this size be run competently by career public servants with low levels of accountability?

If it's not intellectual pride that ignores the obvious answers to these questions, what is it?

[sthira]

It's amazing how intellectual pride allows us to ignore so much that's obvious.

Well, in my case maybe it's less about intellectual pride and more about hopeless idealism. I just think we need to shift the healthcare debate. Let's focus on how all people everywhere should be as free from disease, suffering and pain as possible. What would this take? How may we shift the debate in order to address the need to end useless suffering [i]now[i/]?

That's a good an noble goal and, given almost unlimited resources, it would be possible.

Of course we have enough resources to help struggling people, and to help those suffering as much as we can. Resources are not unlimited, obviously, but we have enough to make people feel better when they get sick.

What needs to be looked at honestly is: Can the market place provide the fairest option for risk spreading? Are governments and committees always corruptible / corrupt? Do government run programs waste? Are they used in a way where the main goal is the political advancement of the group that proposed the policy rather than a sincere desire to help people? Can a program of this size be run competently by career public servants with low levels of accountability?

Maybe the market can indeed provide the fairest option for risk spreading. But the problem is that it hasn't. We should face those marketplace problems and work to fix them, and if we cannot or will not, then what alternatives exist?

Governments and committees need not always be corrupt. Great government programs exist in the country that work: the NIH, for example, and there are many others. Government programs shluldn't suck; they have the potential to be awesome without the totalitarian risks. But you're exactly right: government programs do (often) waste, they are used as political advancement tools rather than focused on the common good. What we forget, though, is that we the people are the government and we get the government we deserve. We deserve better government, but we have to make it -- it won't magically happen on its own.

For me it's less about holding onto some rigid political ideal, and more about idealism. What works best? If it's a combo of private and public care -- which it is -- let's focus on what's important: end useless suffering for as many people caught up in bad health outcomes as possible.

[eon]

I'm still not sure about signing up for this Obamacare thing but I guess I have no choice but to sign up or get penalized. I never had health insurance for almost 10 years. I was told by someone there's a penalty if I don't sign up. Why is this? This is getting weird if it's true. Also, since they are still making changes/revising things about this whole Obamacare thing, that's like signing a contract early on that might look OK at first, but it COULD be revised into a bad contract later on, wouldn't it be? Today, Dec. 23rd, 2013 is the last day if I want my coverage to start on Jan. 1st, 2014, correct? But the final day to sign up to avoid penalties is still March 31st, 2014, right? I still haven't signed up.

Obamacare HAS to be of BENEFIT to someone? Would this be the poorest of the poor if I am not mistaken? Anyone making under $15K, right? What about those making under $30K, would they benefit as well? This Obamacare isn't exactly free. If I can put this in an analogy; if I can afford only tuna and I'm OK with it, why is the government forcing me to buy caviar when I don't really need or like it? I'd love to have it for FREE, but when you force me to "buy" it forcefully, then that's bullying.

Like I said, I have not had a health insurance for almost 10 years, before that I was under my mother's (when I was "helpless"). Since I had been on my own I had learned to unlearn "learned helplessness". Maybe this is the reason why I never had to have insurance for almost 10 years? Maybe if I start getting sick and older, perhaps the Obamacare could be of benefit to me? Maybe it's just good to have it just in case? Kinda like a car insurance; while I am a careful driver, having car insurance protects me, and it's better safe than sorry (it's not like I have a choice to NOT have a car insurance since it would be illegal not to have a vehicle insured, right?). Maybe in the future, not having this Obamacare would be more than just penalties (financially), but it could be ILLEGAL not to have it?

Edited by eon, 23 December 2013 - 10:43 AM.

[Luminosity]

I think they suspended the penalties and extended the deadlines. The penalty is only to take your tax return and you can make it so you don't have a tax refund. The government would have a hard time coming after tens of millions of people for buying something they can't afford.

It's up to you what you do, but the situation is changing all the time. New things are being learned all the time about what's wrong with Obamacare.

Take care of yourself. Don't take recreational or performance drugs and don't overdo the caffeine.

[eon]

The government would have a hard time coming after tens of millions of people for buying something they can't afford.

Ehhk? That's the easiest part of their job considering they have everyone's social security number. They can send you debt anytime or simply automatically take it out of your tax returns, if applicable.

[eon]

the march 31st deadline is approaching, has everyone signed up yet? I'm still hesitating. From what I read from someone is that the minimum one has to pay monthly is about $200, and that isn't even the best coverage. The deductibles are ridiculous. That $200 a month I could buy a new car with considering I haven't had health insurance in about close to 10 years or so. I thought insurance are about $30 a month, but I guess I was wrong. This tells you I know little about having insurance considering my mother was paying for mines back then.

[username]

I'm surprised that so many people in America can sleep soundly without health insurance. What if something happens to you? Everyone can get sick. Also those that least expect it.
I'm glad I have insurance
And $200 a month sounds alright to me. At least from a European point of view.

If I were you, I'd sign up. But it's your decision to make.

[lemonhead]

I'm surprised that so many people in America can sleep soundly without health insurance. What if something happens to you? Everyone can get sick. Also those that least expect it.
I'm glad I have insurance
And $200 a month sounds alright to me. At least from a European point of view.

If I were you, I'd sign up. But it's your decision to make.

The leading cause of bankruptcy in the US is medical bills. A lot of young people bet that they won't get sick or injured; if they do, they rack up huge bills (medical care is actually more expensive for the uninsured since they don't get the special rates that the insurance companies get) and declare bankruptcy. $200 isn't bad compared to the $800 I had to pay to continue my old work plan when I quit my job to move across the country to be with my then boyfriend, now husband. On the other hand, American wages have been depressed for quite a while and Americans have to pay a lot for transportation since mass transit in most places sucks or is non-existent. As eon points out, he could buy a car with that money. Add to that many young people are trying to pay off student loans because tuition is ridiculously high now (and a reminder to you kids out there: federal student loan debts are not disbursable in bankruptcy).

I am risk averse, so if I were him (her?) I'd sign up, but I can understand the reasons for not doing so.

PS - $30 is what you pay when you have employer-provided insurance; that's about what I paid for my work plan when I was actually working. The $800 is what I had to pay for the same plan after I quit; due to COBRA you are allowed to continue to purchase the same plan, but the rates are not the same.

PS#2 - A Harvard study found that 45,000 deaths annually are attributable to lack of insurance.

Edited by lemonhead, 19 March 2014 - 02:00 AM.

[eon]

don't you get free healthcare in Europe?

I'm surprised that so many people in America can sleep soundly without health insurance. What if something happens to you? Everyone can get sick. Also those that least expect it.
I'm glad I have insurance
And $200 a month sounds alright to me. At least from a European point of view.

If I were you, I'd sign up. But it's your decision to make.

[scottknl]

I've experienced the Canadian health care system from many aspects and also been living in the US for the past decade or so and have some experience here too. I have to say that the Canadian system is superior in every aspect. The US system makes the assumption that everyone is an expert in healthcare costs, procedures and availability. The fact that nobody here (US) has a freaking clue what they should pay for any kind of healthcare procedure doesn't seem to occur to anyone to be a problem. In Canada the decisions are left up to the people who know best how to work the system; the doctors and nurses. The worry alone that the US system imposes upon it's patients is really awful. And that whole "if you've got cancer, you can forget about getting heath insurance for the rest of your life" was really the worst part of the old system before ACA. My sister in-law had a minor cancer before ACA was past into law and couldn't get any insurance afterwards. Lucky her, it didn't come back. It's hard for me to believe that anyone wants to abandon what's been done and go back to what it was.

Healthcare needs positive reinforcement to make progress. Subsidies for farmers should be removed from meat and dairy products and changed to subsidize vegetable and maybe nut and/or fruit growers instead. People should be able to take fitness tests and pass them in order to qualify for a cheaper rate on their health insurance. Balanced diet composition and practice should be taught in all schools.

[eon]

Um scott, I don't think the U.S. government is making an assumption that everyone here is an expert regarding healthcare costs, I think it's the other way around. The people do not know anything so the government ends up calling all the shots. All I know is sign up and everything will be "fine". Don't sign up, everything won't be fine.

School meals are the reason everyone is fat here. Bullying is the reason why people seek comfort with food.

My colleague voted for Obama because he thought he would be getting free healthcare. I didn't follow the whole thing if what was said was "free" or "affordable". But what is "affordable"? This guy I think makes less than $30K a year so I'm not sure if it would be $200 monthly for him for the insurance or his whole family is under the whole plan or what. Deductibles are said to be high, so every time you go visit a doctor, how much will this eat out at his less than $30K a year income? Considering he does not take all $30K a year, more likely less than $20K. He has rent to pay, car insurance, bills, etc. so he is left with no savings? Maybe he is going to pay $30 for insurance through his employer? But they cut off people's hours to 30 a week?

Edited by eon, 19 March 2014 - 05:45 AM.

[Luminosity]

Before Obamacare, there were some healthy young people who paid $50.00 a month for some kind of coverage. Now without subsidies it seems to cost a young person about $300.00 a month for what is supposed to be comprehensive coverage, only it pays so little per service that most doctors will probably not take it. I've heard of studies that people on Medicaid have had lower survival rates for surgeries than uninsured people. That might be because I've seen doctors use them to teach surgery students on without even telling them or giving them a chance to opt out.

One thing I know for sure, when the reimbursement per service is too low, as it is for Medicaid and Obamacare, bad things happen. A number of hospitals have closed where I live due to (I believe) poor reimbursements from Medicaid and Medicare. Where I live a lot of people are on Medicaid and there is already mandated comprehensive coverage for anyone working over 19 hours a week. So the hospitals weren't likely bankrupted by uninsured people. They had plenty of customers too. What's so diabolical about Obamacare it that it will effect everyone, directly or indirectly, and will effect the type and quality of services available to us. The plans that worked for people were supposed to be disappeared. Obama changes his mind by the week, but insurance companies don't roll that way. It seems hard to get away from the law's bad effects.

They should repeal it.

Edited by Luminosity, 19 March 2014 - 05:56 AM.

[eon]

$800 is like mortgage in North Carolina, where you're from?

are you back to paying $30 now?

I don't plan on staying in my state or at my work soon. I plan on moving to another state. Not sure how this will work out then. If I quit my job now, I'm unemployed therefore could I reap the benefits of this "ACA"? Now let's say I moved to a new state, got employed, what happens next? Do I get insurance from my employer (if provided) for $30? If not, it would be more than that then?

I'm surprised that so many people in America can sleep soundly without health insurance. What if something happens to you? Everyone can get sick. Also those that least expect it.
I'm glad I have insurance
And $200 a month sounds alright to me. At least from a European point of view.

If I were you, I'd sign up. But it's your decision to make.

The leading cause of bankruptcy in the US is medical bills. A lot of young people bet that they won't get sick or injured; if they do, they rack up huge bills (medical care is actually more expensive for the uninsured since they don't get the special rates that the insurance companies get) and declare bankruptcy. $200 isn't bad compared to the $800 I had to pay to continue my old work plan when I quit my job to move across the country to be with my then boyfriend, now husband. On the other hand, American wages have been depressed for quite a while and Americans have to pay a lot for transportation since mass transit in most places sucks or is non-existent. As eon points out, he could buy a car with that money. Add to that many young people are trying to pay off student loans because tuition is ridiculously high now (and a reminder to you kids out there: federal student loan debts are not disbursable in bankruptcy).

I am risk averse, so if I were him (her?) I'd sign up, but I can understand the reasons for not doing so.

PS - $30 is what you pay when you have employer-provided insurance; that's about what I paid for my work plan when I was actually working. The $800 is what I had to pay for the same plan after I quit; due to COBRA you are allowed to continue to purchase the same plan, but the rates are not the same.

PS#2 - A Harvard study found that 45,000 deaths annually are attributable to lack of insurance.

[eon]

well Doctors have to pay back their Harvard debts.

I knew someone whose wife didn't have insurance but she had to get surgery I think to remove stones from her kidney, not sure exactly but all I know is that he showed me the bill was $25K I think. They obviously can't afford to pay that upfront as he makes that much a year.

Before Obamacare, there were some healthy young people who paid $50.00 a month for some kind of coverage. Now without subsidies it seems to cost a young person about $300.00 a month for what is supposed to be comprehensive coverage, only it pays so little per service that most doctors will probably not take it. I've heard of studies that people on Medicaid have had lower survival rates for surgeries than uninsured people. That might be because I've seen doctors use them to teach surgery students on without even telling them or giving them a chance to opt out.

One thing I know for sure, when the reimbursement per service is too low, as it is for Medicaid and Obamacare, bad things happen. A number of hospitals have closed where I live due to (I believe) poor reimbursements from Medicaid and Medicare. Where I live a lot of people are on Medicaid and there is already mandated comprehensive coverage for anyone working over 19 hours a week. So the hospitals weren't likely bankrupted by uninsured people. They had plenty of customers too. What's so diabolical about Obamacare it that it will effect everyone, directly or indirectly, and will effect the type and quality of services available to us. It seems hard to get away from it's bad effects.

They should repeal it.

[Luminosity]

REPOSTING MY ORIGINAL POST ON THIS THREAD FOR THOSE JUST JOINING US:

Posted Originally 29 June 2012 http://www.longecity...olds-obamacare/


This [Obamacare] is very bad news in reality . . .

I support the goal of insuring more people but this won't really do that in any good way. Sometimes if you have nothing good to offer people, leaving them alone is the best you can do. [emphasis added]

As for what Justice Roberts was up to, he might erroneously believe that he is helping people, like he is starting Social Security. Only people who have never had contact with the business end of Medicaid would be able to believe that. This is the problem with having a government run by privileged people. They are lacking crucial pieces of information.

I notice the smiling faces of some who support Obamacare on the TV shows. Everyone of them has good private health insurance. They have no idea of the Kafka-esque nightmare that awaits people who don't have that privilege. Many medical supply businesses will not take Medicaid and will not take cash from Medicaid patients. If you ask Medicaid for instance, which wheelchair stores will accept Medicaid, they say they don't know. If you call the stores directly, they will remember your voice and will not deal with you. Because of things like this, when I had secondary Medicaid coverage, I just paid out of pocket for some expenses because it wasn't even o.k. to ask if certain suppliers would take Medicaid.

Many doctors won't see people who have Medicaid, and will not take their cash. Almost no dentists will take Medicaid patients and will not see them for cash. If a doctor will see a Medicaid patient, it may be to use them as teaching tools, without their knowledge or consent. My friend had reconstructive surgery by a well-known surgeon. He happened to have operated on several of my other friends with good results. On this friend, who had Medicaid, he brought in two medical students to do the work, without really explaining to her what was going on. It it didn't go well. She didn't even finish all the procedures and goes around with part of her body half-formed.

If you have to choose between car repairs, or food and health insurance, how ridiculous is that? Will uninsured people have to go underground like illegal aliens? Will doctors be forced to document your insurance status? Will some just elect to do that? What about wholistic people who pay for all their care out of pocket anyway? Will spending thousands on unused health care be required of them?

Posted 01 July 2012

Mr. Happy, your system [Australia] sounds pretty good. You don't understand that the government in the US won't try to set up a good system. They will just bilk people on behalf of the insurance companies. For instance, if you make more than $14,000 a year, you will not be eligible for free insurance. And you can be fined for not having any. And it could well cost $500-$1,000 a month for insurance. And you need to read my earlier post about the free government insurance we have now. It will be like that. [emphasis added]

Posted 05 July 2012

[Obamacare] may actually make health care for low income people much worse while pretending to do otherwise. It may also make everyone's experience more like being on Medicaid due to dilution of resources, Medicare cuts etc.

This is what they would have done if they really wanted to insure more people and cut costs:

Ban tobacco
Legislate drug costs like they do in Canada and most of the world
Ban all you can drink soda fountains
Ban large sodas, upsizing, value meals, etc.
Ban advertising of junk food and fast food to children, as they do in some foreign countries
Ban hydrogenated oil, the single worst food ingredient on the planet, progenitor of heart attacks and so much more
Ban MSG
Move towards organic agriculture
Ban feeding arsenic, routine antibiotics, growth hormones and animal parts to farm animals.
Move towards Integrated Pest Control to reduce pesticide exposures in our homes, schools, businesses and public spaces
Mandate walking paths and bike ways in future construction. Add them to existing spaces whenever the opportunity arises.
Add wholistic medicine and acupuncture as options under insurance and government programs
Encourage midwives and natural childbirth
Move resources from expensive hospital care to hospice and home care type programs--take care of people's human needs instead uselessly intervening for the dollars.
Ban GMO foods
Add special social workers/doctors/nurses to the health care system to give some people the attention and validation they currently get from seeking unneeded tests, hospitalizations, operations, i.e., work with human nature in an intelligent fashion.

After ten to twenty years of this, we could insure everyone we need to with the savings. In the meantime, we could insure a lot of people by:

A) taxing rich people
B) ceasing building highways to nowhere, funding Solyndras, having stupid wars, etc.

If we as a nation had the maturity to consistently fund government health care at a high enough level and not to misuse the power therein, we could eventually persuade people to sign up for single payer system. It must be said that we lack that maturity and that restraint. Always have. Probably always will.

Posted 10 July 2012

I believe that we should insure everyone but that Obamacare will fail to do that. [emphasis added] Even if it was fully implemented, you would not be able to get free health care under it due to asset/income limits and budgetary shortfalls. The little accessible health care that medicaid recipients and low income people get right now will also be diluted to the point of ridiculousness.

_____________________________________________________________


Feel free to contact your representatives in government and tell them your opinion on Obamacare:

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Comments: 202-456-1111
TTY/TTD Comments: 202-456-6213
email: http://www.whitehous...ns-and-comments

When contacting Congress, a phone call or visit to their office might have the most impact. A snail mail letter may be next. My Congresspeople get so many emails that it isn't clear that they even read them anymore, but sending one is better than not. Put your position in the title.

You can call your Congressperson through the Capital Switchboard at (202) 224-3121

They have local offices in their state. I think you can stop by for a visit(?)

To find out who your two Senators are and their contact info go to: http://www.senate.go...enators_cfm.cfm
If you know his or her name you could also write them at:
United States Senate
Washington D.C. 20510

To find your Representative in the House and their contact info go to: https://writerep.hou...p/welcome.shtml
If you know his or her name you could also write them at:
United States House of Representatives
Washington DC 20515

Edited by Luminosity, 19 March 2014 - 06:14 AM.

[lemonhead]

$800 is like mortgage in North Carolina, where you're from?

are you back to paying $30 now?

I don't plan on staying in my state or at my work soon. I plan on moving to another state. Not sure how this will work out then. If I quit my job now, I'm unemployed therefore could I reap the benefits of this "ACA"? Now let's say I moved to a new state, got employed, what happens next? Do I get insurance from my employer (if provided) for $30? If not, it would be more than that then?

Actually, our mortgage for an 1800 sq ft home is only $500. Rent for a crappy 1 bedroom apt in a high crime area is $600, a decent one is $1200.

I'm married and not working so I'm on my husband's employer plan. We're lucky that he works for a company that actually ranks high in national lists of 'best companies to work for', though they just had layoffs so the future is always uncertain these days. For each person on the plan you have to pay a monthly charge, and it is low as is typical of good employer-provided plans, but I'm not sure of the exact amount. However, it is a high deductible plan, and it's my understanding that this is now the norm. A few years back when I was working here in NC I was on my then-employer's plan since they charged a lower monthly fee than it would have cost to add me as a dependent on my husband's plan. If I wanted to, I could have gone on my husbands plan, opted out of my employer's plan, and had a few bucks added back to my paycheck.

The amount taken from your paycheck for an employer plan varies, but it is typically quite low compared with what you can get as an individual for the same amount of coverage. I paid $800 back before the ACA to keep on my old plan since I wanted to keep my old policy (the COBRA law allowed for that); it was a good plan and I have some health issues that require specialist care. At the time, my goal was to re-locate and get a job and try to get insurance through my new employer. I did get a job, but I didn't work long enough to get on the new plan (there's often a waiting period) before I got pregnant and married (happy accident, but a normal vaginal delivery costs around $15k, so you need to have insurance for that). When my child started school, I got another job, and used the coverage as explained above.

So, in short, you might be able to get a much better deal on insurance through your new employer, particularly if it is a large employer (larger company means a bigger risk pool)* but there may be a waiting period. For a point of reference, WalMart's waiting period is 90 days and premiums are $17 per pay period (which I assume is every 2 weeks).

*Some smaller, high-earning tech companies self-insure and that can be a good way to go, also, so long as the company takes appropriate financial measures (a good stop-loss insurance plan) to guard against years with big 'hits', as the AOL 'distressed babies' case illustrates.

---

I'm Canadian, though I've spent most of my life in the US now. I lived there as a child and I attended college there for 7 years; I concur with scottknl: overall, healthcare is better in Canada. My sister is there and complains a lot about it, but she did get acupuncture paid for for her migraines and I 'm pretty sure you'd have to have some really good insurance for that to happen here. Also, another female family member did not have breast development on one side and they did implant surgery for her. But she wanted both sides done so it would look more even. I don't think insurance plans here would even cover one side.

Edited by lemonhead, 19 March 2014 - 01:15 PM.

[scottknl]

Before Obamacare, there were some healthy young people who paid $50.00 a month for some kind of coverage. Now without subsidies it seems to cost a young person about $300.00 a month for what is supposed to be comprehensive coverage, only it pays so little per service that most doctors will probably not take it. I've heard of studies that people on Medicaid have had lower survival rates for surgeries than uninsured people. That might be because I've seen doctors use them to teach surgery students on without even telling them or giving them a chance to opt out.

One thing I know for sure, when the reimbursement per service is too low, as it is for Medicaid and Obamacare, bad things happen. A number of hospitals have closed where I live due to (I believe) poor reimbursements from Medicaid and Medicare. Where I live a lot of people are on Medicaid and there is already mandated comprehensive coverage for anyone working over 19 hours a week. So the hospitals weren't likely bankrupted by uninsured people. They had plenty of customers too. What's so diabolical about Obamacare it that it will effect everyone, directly or indirectly, and will effect the type and quality of services available to us. The plans that worked for people were supposed to be disappeared. Obama changes his mind by the week, but insurance companies don't roll that way. It seems hard to get away from the law's bad effects.

They should repeal it.

Luminosity, the old system worked ok for people who were employed and/or healthy. It didn't work very well for those who were unemployed and sick. I thought healthcare was to benefit the sick in our society? If you repeal ACA, what will you replace it with? Even before Hillary tried with her plan people wanted to change healthcare and here we are 20+ years later without a good system. Meanwhile thousands of people's lives have been ruined by their healthcare experiences. ACA does have a bunch of flaws, but you can't just repeal it and go back to the same old plan as before. The old system was bad for those who have preexisting conditions and young people who can't afford coverage when they are periodically unemployed. People will struggle along with the current ACA premiums and the sick and unemployed will also do better than in the old system, so it's better. It would be even better (and cheaper) with a single payer system which would save at least 20% of healthcare costs due to the reduced paperwork and allow the single payer system to negotiate for better drug prices with the corporations. But unfortunately that's politically impossible. Prior to ACA, the growth in healthcare costs was a common complaint of small business owners. I'd hope that with more participants in the healthcare system, premiums might be able to rise a little slower in the future.

[rwac]

Prior to ACA, the growth in healthcare costs was a common complaint of small business owners. I'd hope that with more participants in the healthcare system, premiums might be able to rise a little slower in the future.

I'm not defending the status quo ante.

However the reason ACA implementation (with respect to the employer mandate) has been delayed is that a lot of businesses are going to drop their insurance due to the increased costs. Yes, perhaps the business owners are going to stop complaining, mostly because they will stop offering insurance in the first place.

We don't even have a clear picture of how many people have signed up currently, probably because the numbers are really bad. So the biggest reason for ACA, the participation might not have improved.

[Luminosity]

scottkhl,

Health insurance costs have risen dramatically because of Obamacare and they will rise a lot more.

I think if you read my posts you will see rebuttals to most of your other arguments. The ACA will cause more people overall to be uninsured, and those with ACA insurance will often find that doctors won't take it. Hospitals, specialists, and other medical resources will dry up due to a substantial percentage of the population having insurance that reimburses them less than it costs provide services.

Obamacare was never designed to help most of the people it claims to help. The math doesn't add up. It's just something for Obama to put on his resume. The old system was o.k. for most people but not for some. The medical resources were there. If you didn't have money or insurance, you had a chance to get to them on some basis. Doctors often give uninsured people a 50% discount and hospitals write off bills to insured low income people sometimes. Is that fair? No, but in the future, those resources might not even be there. That will be worse.

Edited by Luminosity, 20 March 2014 - 05:33 AM.

[sthira]

The old system was o.k. for most people but not for some.  

Versus

The leading cause of bankruptcy in the US is medical bills

[xks201]

Well said. I voted for Ron paul.

[eon]

I voted for no one. Ron Paul is one of those that everyone wants to win but couldn't. I'm still hesitating whether to sign up or not. If $200 is what I have to pay for a month, when do I start paying this? I don't plan on staying in my state or in my workplace so there will be some changes in a few months. Not sure if I'd be wasting money and time signing up for and paying for something I do not want to buy. I think people are to reliant on government care whether it's welfare, food stamps, and now healthcare. I think they should divide the pay type: for disease care it should be $200 a month, for just general wellness and regular check ups, I don't mind paying $20 a month.

[Luminosity]

The total amount of destruction will be more with Obamacare, including lack of real access to real health care. Have no idea how it will specifically affect bankruptcy. If people have the option of paying cash for what used to be standard health care, they might take it and still go bankrupt. Or it could go like Medicaid where a lot of doctors can't even take your cash, or those doctors/hospitals might not even exist, so you won't go bankrupt, but you might die instead.

The deficiencies of the old system in no way excuse Obamacare.

Edited by Luminosity, 21 March 2014 - 05:07 AM.

[lemonhead]

I voted for no one. Ron Paul is one of those that everyone wants to win but couldn't. I'm still hesitating whether to sign up or not. If $200 is what I have to pay for a month, when do I start paying this? I don't plan on staying in my state or in my workplace so there will be some changes in a few months. Not sure if I'd be wasting money and time signing up for and paying for something I do not want to buy. I think people are to reliant on government care whether it's welfare, food stamps, and now healthcare. I think they should divide the pay type: for disease care it should be $200 a month, for just general wellness and regular check ups, I don't mind paying $20 a month.

You can sign up for however much it is, then when you are eligible for your new employer's plan you just switch. You'll have insurance so there should be no repercussions.

Suppose you had a plan that only covered a yearly wellness visit and a flu shot. Then you get really sick, e.g., really bad food poisoning or burst appendix, and you wind up in the ICU for a few days. Then you are on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars.

[eon]

yeah but wouldn't I be paying more if I am not under an employer's plan? Let's say I quit now but signed up for obamacare, after 3 months I find a job and get on board with the employer's plan. Those 3 months I am not employed, I'd be paying more then?