Obamacare

[NAOS]

Video is almost two years old, but is more relevant than ever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMuXcuudvCc

Thanks for sharing. Some very strong truthy statements to close the video.

 

[Stoked]

lmao. Truly perfect Stoked Post.

It's true though. It is not the life saver for all that it is painted by some to be and it is not the end of it all as painted by others.

I am not for a repeal of it though. I am for a fixing of damaged parts. just because I stay general doesn't mean I am wrong.

Edit: I rarely have time for true in depth posts on here.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Health insurance premiums for most Americans have risen at their slowest rates in 2 decades since Obamacare was enacted. So if you hate skyrocketing premiums then you must love Obamacare.

If you're self employed and can't find affordable insurance then stop blaming others. Get off your ***, pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, and figure things out. Go back to school to make yourself marketable. Get s job that offers health insurance. Start up your own insurance company. That's the beauty of this free market system you and your ilk cheer on.

But stop bitching. Get to work

Yep, that's quite a philosphy, I've got mine, so F you lazy whining unable to pull yourselves up by the bootstraps types who don't have yours.

This just about the most simple minded thinking possible to what is a complex issue. Not at all helpful, but unfortunately, how a lot of people (including those making health care laws) think. (I'm not sure this is meant to represent what he really thinks or to spoof the hard right wing types who spout similar such nonsense. I think/hope it's the latter.)

In an ultimate irony, my tea bagger brother said very similar things, just about every time you saw him (he has boundary respect issues), yet once he was done embezzling from my parents'estate (to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, he was a big 'pull yourself up by your bootstraps' moralizer, which apparently for him meant using his position as estate trustee to steal from the estate) and had no work, health insurance offered on the HCA exchange was the only health insurance he could afford.

 

[NAOS]

It's true though. It is not the life saver for all that it is painted by some to be and it is not the end of it all as painted by others.

I am not for a repeal of it though. I am for a fixing of damaged parts. just because I stay general doesn't mean I am wrong.

Edit: I rarely have time for true in depth posts on here.

ok.

Btw, I love general statements. Good ones are my absolute jam. But then their are general statements that are so vanilla that they don't say/teach anything. Your quoted post was one of the latter, I'm afraid. Love you, doe, bro

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I've been consistent all along, IF the Republicans at any point in time made good faith proposals to improve the ACA or fix its flaws, I would have been all in favor of such a process--done in good faith. Lord knows the ACA is not perfect and can be improved. However, not once did Republicans every do this; instead it was a non-stop procession of repeal votes and heated and hyperbolic rhetoric, making opposition of the ACA a litmus test of one's Republican/conservative bonafides. At the same time, this forced liberals and progressives (I consider myself the latter) into a defensive posture to support the ACA from attack; whereas many of us are happy to concede its flaws would have been willing to undertake efforts to improve it, but there was no way to do this given the current environment. So, due largely to the Republican approach to this issue, the two sides (as it were) were forced into diametrically opposite positions, with no one staking out a middle ground, and thus no improvements were considered or made.

Today, Republicans STILL have no coherent plan, around which any number of them have coalesced, to replace the ACA in a way that retains the current rates of coverage, more or less, and which protects those with pre-existing conditions. Repeal will create the kind of market uncertainty conservatives claim to love to hate and will kick tens of millions off insurance rolls and again place those with pre-existing conditions at mercy to the whims of insurers (and insurers have no mercy).

All this because from Day 1, Republicans just couldn't give Obama any kind of policy win; which has since taken on a life of its own, in this particular case, morphed over time into a largely irrational hatred of ACA. IF this had been a Republican proposal (and indeed the concept of HC exchanges was hatched in a conservative think tank), this would have unspooled quite differently, I would imagine.

 

[Stoked]

ok.

Btw, I love general statements. Good ones are my absolute jam. But then their are general statements that are so vanilla that they don't say/teach anything. Your quoted post was one of the latter, I'm afraid. Love you, doe, bro

Yeah it was lol. I have no problem admitting that.

 

[Stoked]

Only things I have hear from the Rs is tort reform and competition across state lines. Neither of those ideas are incompatible with the ACA. Allowing competition across state lines would actually enhance the ACA I think.

 

[LogGrad98]

Ready for Obamacare to go away. Was unemployed for about 4 months last year and applied for an exemption to the penalty. It was of course denied. So now I will be on the hook for $1600 because it took me 3 extra weeks to find a job. I have appealed it but that is the most ludicrous thing I can imagine. I was denied any financial assistance from the marketplace because my annual income was too high (already crossed the threshold before I got laid off last year), so monthly would have cost nearly $1000 for the "cheapest" qualifying plan. First time in over 20 years I have had a gap in insurance longer than 3 months and I get stuck owing $1600?? ****ing get rid of it already.

 

[The Thriller]

Only things I have hear from the Rs is tort reform and competition across state lines. Neither of those ideas are incompatible with the ACA. Allowing competition across state lines would actually enhance the ACA I think.

Why would it enhance the ACA? Wouldn't insurance companies move to the least regulated state with the lowest standards for health insurance triggering a race to the bottom?

Tort reform has been batted around for about 20 years now. Fraudulent claims constitute for less than 1 percent of what we spend on health care. So hardly a money saver. And why should making it harder for patients to file for malpractice be a good thing?

So neither of these "reforms" address cost or quality. Why would they enhance anything then?

 

[The Thriller]

Ready for Obamacare to go away. Was unemployed for about 4 months last year and applied for an exemption to the penalty. It was of course denied. So now I will be on the hook for $1600 because it took me 3 extra weeks to find a job. I have appealed it but that is the most ludicrous thing I can imagine. I was denied any financial assistance from the marketplace because my annual income was too high (already crossed the threshold before I got laid off last year), so monthly would have cost nearly $1000 for the "cheapest" qualifying plan. First time in over 20 years I have had a gap in insurance longer than 3 months and I get stuck owing $1600?? ****ing get rid of it already.

If you lived in Germany, France, Japan, or Switzerland you would've had an insurance plan through your work. The primary difference is that these insurance plans provide better care at a fraction of the cost since their insurance companies operate as nonprofits. For example, in Germany you could get an insurance plan that covers preventative care and gym memberships (in the end these help prolong you life).

And if you had lost your job you'd still be covered. Your coverage doesn't end because your employment ends.

It quite honestly is amazing how we Americans combine 4 major health care models and think that we have some sort of a health care system and not a traffic jam of malicious greed, pork, and fraud. We combine the worker based health insurance of the Bismarck model. the UK's socialized medicine of the beveridge model for the VA. Canada's national health insurance model for Medicare. And the wonderful "out of pocket" model of Somalia where if ya got it ya got health care if not you're fed!

And we wonder why we have such a mess?

 

[The Thriller]

For those of you interested in actually debating this subject, I shall provide a few links. So before you go on some lame *** diatribe against socialized medicine, single payer systems, or tort reform, please read and get yourself informed.

First of all, not all single payer systems are "SOCIALIZED MEDICINE." Republicans in recent years have successfully made "Single Payer" into a dirty word equating free market health care systems like Germany to Kim Il Sung's North Korea. It's just not the same at all. Single payer systems could mean anything from socialized medicine, to nationalized health insurance, to nonprofit health insurances. So being open to a single payer system does not automatically mean that you are some sort of anti-free market socialist.

Secondly, if any of you are interested in reading a fantastic book on health care systems, try this:

goo.gl/7sUTHr


It's very interesting and an easy read.

Thirdly we need to understand why health care costs are so high here in America:

https://goo.gl/7q6d7H

Administration costs:

Just to give you one example, Duke University Hospital has 900 hospital beds and 1,300 billing clerks. The typical Canadian hospital has a handful of billing clerks. Single-payer systems have fewer administrative needs.

• Hospitals burn through cash trying desperately to find who to bill and for how much. If a party cannot or will not pay, they must seek to gouge another party to recoup their losses.
• Doctors too, burn through so much cash record keeping, trying to figure out who to bill, and for how much. Having so many different tiers (out of pocket, Medicare, and insurance) has only made it harder to bill and consequently, more expensive. They also must deal with massive student loans to pay off and malpractice insurance (as yet again, for profit insurance gouges the doctors).
• Insurance companies are for profit and are seeking to keep it that way. By far the primary drivers of our costs.

The second reason health care costs so much in America is that the U.S. spends more than other countries do on many of the same things. Drugs are the most commonly noted item, where a branded drug will cost much more in the U.S. than in other countries.

As you will find out if you read the book that I posted about above, most other industrialized nations have government intervention when it comes to setting operation or drug prices. In the UK, their government flat out tells doctors how much they can charge for operations and how much pharmaceuticals can charge for their drugs. It's worked out well for patients and for government hoping to keep prices down. In Germany, the nonprofit health insurances work together with doctors, pharmaceuticals, and the government to negotiate and set the prices. Again, patients end up winning.

Here in the United States? It a **** for all. Big Pharm buys off Congress who stands by squabbling over whether the President is a Muslim or not. While pharmaceuticals jack up prices on their drugs. Insurance companies react and then jack up your prices. The patients are the biggest losers.

The third one is Americans receive more medical care than people do in other countries, not so much in terms of doctor visits, but if a person has a heart attack in the United States, they’re much more likely to get open heart surgery than they are in most other countries.

Go back to Canada. In all of Ontario there are 11 hospitals that can do open heart surgery. Pennsylvania has roughly the population of Ontario and it has a bit over 60 hospitals that can do open heart surgery.

Again, other countries have health care systems that incentivize preventative care. Here in the United States? We don't have a uniform system. So it's difficult to incentivize preventative care. Have an owie? Surgery! Don't feel good? Surgery! A cheaper operation is available? Meh who the hell knows or cares?! Surgery!

So we need to set the prices (via government regulation) and add transparency
Reform insurance companies to incentivize preventative care
Crush the monopoly that AMA has on medical schools. The AMA is brutally slow in opening up new medical schools. As a result, they can control the tuition costs... Which are skyrocketing. As doctors find themselves deeper and deeper in debt, the more they must charge. Also, this creates a physical shortage, which is what we have in America compared to other western industrialized democracies.

 

[The Thriller]

4 health care models that we should all learn about. IMO, the Bismarck one is the best and would be the most easily adapted to the United States of America. Besides, it was developed by Otto Von Bismarck. Is even he too liberal for America's conservatives these days???

https://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/health_care_systems_four_basic_models.php

Named for the Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, who invented the welfare state as part of the unification of Germany in the 19th century. Despite its European heritage, this system of providing health care would look fairly familiar to Americans. It uses an insurance system — the insurers are called “sickness funds” — usually financed jointly by employers and employees through payroll deduction.

Unlike the U.S. insurance industry, though, Bismarck-type health insurance plans have to cover everybody, and they don’t make a profit. Doctors and hospitals tend to be private in Bismarck countries; Japan has more private hospitals than the U.S. Although this is a multi-payer model — Germany has about 240 different funds — tight regulation gives government much of the cost-control clout that the single-payer Beveridge Model provides.

The Bismarck model is found in Germany, of course, and France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Japan, Switzerland, and, to a degree, in Latin America.

More Details:

https://healthmatters4.blogspot.com/2011/01/bismarck-model.html

 

[LogGrad98]

If you lived in Germany, France, Japan, or Switzerland you would've had an insurance plan through your work. The primary difference is that these insurance plans provide better care at a fraction of the cost since their insurance companies operate as nonprofits. For example, in Germany you could get an insurance plan that covers preventative care and gym memberships (in the end these help prolong you life).

And if you had lost your job you'd still be covered. Your coverage doesn't end because your employment ends.

It quite honestly is amazing how we Americans combine 4 major health care models and think that we have some sort of a health care system and not a traffic jam of malicious greed, pork, and fraud. We combine the worker based health insurance of the Bismarck model. the UK's socialized medicine of the beveridge model for the VA. Canada's national health insurance model for Medicare. And the wonderful "out of pocket" model of Somalia where if ya got it ya got health care if not you're fed!

And we wonder why we have such a mess?

I think most of us are aware of this. The problem is it is so entrenched, and the 2 sides of the political spectrum so divided, that it will probably take a catastrophic collapse of the system to get it changed to anything remotely meaningful.

 

[The Thriller]

I think most of us are aware of this. The problem is it is so entrenched, and the 2 sides of the political spectrum so divided, that it will probably take a catastrophic collapse of the system to get it changed to anything remotely meaningful.

We are spending over 5 percent more in GDP than the next country. And we leave over 30 million (10 percent) of our population uninsured and screwed. The #1 cause of bankruptcy in our country is healthcare expenses. If this isn't a catastrophic collapse then I don't know what is.

The problem is Americans are just so isolated and completely ignorant of health care systems around the world. It's hard for a country like Germany to ignore its health care shortcomings when there are 10 countries nearby.

Republicans and their fake news (am radio and fox) have poisoned this debate so much that I agree, reform is almost impossible.

 

[Dr. Jones]

ok.

Btw, I love general statements. Good ones are my absolute jam. But then their are general statements that are so vanilla that they don't say/teach anything. Your quoted post was one of the latter, I'm afraid. Love you, doe, bro

Some words you spelled correctly, some you didn't.

 

[NAOS]

Some words you spelled correctly, some you didn't.

thanks.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Ready for Obamacare to go away. Was unemployed for about 4 months last year and applied for an exemption to the penalty. It was of course denied. So now I will be on the hook for $1600 because it took me 3 extra weeks to find a job. I have appealed it but that is the most ludicrous thing I can imagine. I was denied any financial assistance from the marketplace because my annual income was too high (already crossed the threshold before I got laid off last year), so monthly would have cost nearly $1000 for the "cheapest" qualifying plan. First time in over 20 years I have had a gap in insurance longer than 3 months and I get stuck owing $1600?? ****ing get rid of it already.

exactly, forcing you to buy something.

it is tyranny to force you to buy something at gun point

 

[The Thriller]

exactly, forcing you to buy something.

it is tyranny to force you to buy something at gun point

All other industrialized nations have an individual mandate for health care. Everyone must slap some skin into paying for health care just like defense. It's not tyranny but just common sense.

 

[DutchJazzer]

All other industrialized nations have an individual mandate for health care. Everyone must slap some skin into paying for health care just like defense. It's not tyranny but just common sense.

people who agree with what tyrants say, never see how it is tyranny until they disagree

 

[The Thriller]

people who agree with what tyrants say, never see how it is tyranny until they disagree

Ummmm no.

If you want the benefits of modern day universal health care system then you need to pay for its costs. The only way this can be paid for is with an individual mandate. Otherwise, you will have winners and losers (people who go bankrupt, become sick, and die for lack of coverage) and skyrocketing costs (because health care for uninsured is much more expensive). Get educated