Obamacare

[The Thriller]

Again showing you're out of touch. For many making that 30k they can't afford the premiums either. Many are scraping by. My son is in that category and is trying to take care is a family on that amount. Luckily his exemption application was accepted. But my daughter's wasn't. She will pay a fine she can't afford. And auto enrolment us substandard plans doesn't help anyone, other than subsidizing other plans. The plan my son could have had was a purely catastrophic plan that still would have cost more than his car insurance and payment every month and had no coverage for prescriptions, which is his biggest medical cost. My penalty for being unemployed for 4 months is over $400 per month during that time frame when I had no income, but since my annual was higher I didn't qualify for any assistance either. It is a deeply flawed system and needs to be reversed or better replaced. But I don't ever see that happening. Too much political skin in this game. So much for our elected representatives making decisions based on what's best for the constituency.

Out of touch? What the hell are you talking about? I recognize that health care costs are out of control hence why I would prefer a Bismarck health care model similar to that of France and Germany. I understand that health insurance, even on the subsidized Obamacare market is unaffordable to your daughter. But some of the primary contributing factors in the recent increases in premiums has been that many states have refused to expand Medicaid (thanks Justice Roberts) and the light fines on people who refuse to obtain insurance. I know it might be confusing, but the more people who pay into this insurance pie the lower the premiums will be. Unfortunately, republicans have taken any serious bite out of the insidkcual mandate which would've put pressure on employees and employers to get their people insured.

If I could reform our system I would immediately:

A. Get rid of for profit insurance
B. Make everyone chip into the insurance pie
C. Use Government intervention to control prices. Especially drug prices, which is one of the top drivers of health care costs.
D. Create a national insurance card that would keep track of your information and eliminate all of the costs associated with billing and medical records at hospitals and doctor's offices. No longer would health care providers need rooms and rooms of filing cabinets and servers to know your medical history or billing information.
E. Open up far more medical schools and set limits on tuition costs. It is a matter of national security to keep our doctor to patient ratio high. That way doctor aren't saddled with debt (which is passed onto the patient) and we keep doctor shortages at a minimal level.

These Will go a long way into making health insurance affordable again.

At least democrats tried something. When the hell was the last time the GOP tried anything to actually make health care more available to others? Hell, they've been bitching about repealing obamacare before the ink had even dried. Here it is 2017 and they have yet to develop a plan.

 

[LogGrad98]

I couldn't care less which side does it. That is a useless discussion point tbh. The Democrats pushed through a **** system mostly to **** with the Republicans. It would be better if they dropped the whole dem and Repub ******** and actually got something ****ing DONE for once.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Out of touch? What the hell are you talking about? I recognize that health care costs are out of control hence why I would prefer a Hitler health care model similar to that of France and Germany. I understand that health insurance, even on the subsidized Obamacare market is unaffordable to your daughter. But some of the primary contributing factors in the recent increases in premiums has been that many states have refused to expand Medicaid (thanks Justice Roberts) and the light fines on people who refuse to obtain insurance. I know it might be confusing, but the more people who pay into this insurance pie the lower the premiums will be. Unfortunately, republicans have taken any serious bite out of the insidkcual mandate which would've put pressure on employees and employers to get their people insured.

If I could reform our system I would immediately:

A. Get rid of for profit insurance
B. Make everyone chip into the insurance pie
C. Use Government intervention to control prices. Especially drug prices, which is one of the top drivers of health care costs.
D. Create a national insurance card that would keep track of your information and eliminate all of the costs associated with billing and medical records at hospitals and doctor's offices. No longer would health care providers need rooms and rooms of filing cabinets and servers to know your medical history or billing information.
E. Open up far more medical schools and set limits on tuition costs. It is a matter of national security to keep our doctor to patient ratio high. That way doctor aren't saddled with debt (which is passed onto the patient) and we keep doctor shortages at a minimal level.

These Will go a long way into making health insurance affordable again.

At least democrats tried something. When the hell was the last time the GOP tried anything to actually make health care more available to others? Hell, they've been bitching about repealing obamacare before the ink had even dried. Here it is 2017 and they have yet to develop a plan.

FIXED

biscmarck model is just medicaid and medicare!

 

[infection]

E. Open up far more medical schools and set limits on tuition costs. It is a matter of national security to keep our doctor to patient ratio high. That way doctor aren't saddled with debt (which is passed onto the patient) and we keep doctor shortages at a minimal level.

There are a number of things in this thread and on this subject I wanted to get in to but will have to wait until a bit later but I wanted to respond to this one quickly as it's not really related to what I wanted to say. You can increase medical schools as much as you want but that's not going to actually produce you more practicing physicians. The tuition costs of medical schools have ballooned secondary to guaranteed government backing of covering the cost of attendance. In any case, nobody is paying for it out of pocket so the cost of it won't have a lot of direct effects on training physicians as I really don't believe we're at that point (or close to that point) that medical schools won't be fetching quality applicants as a result. I'm also curious how you feel a physician's educational debt is passed along to the patient, if you don't mind elaborating on that.

 

[DutchJazzer]

2 senators on the "right" to healthcare.
hope i do not get banned. got banned for critiquing socialism. this is just 2 qoutes form 2 senators.

if however i get banned and you wanna contact me. jason has my email adress, he prolly will supply you with it

 

[Miggs]

Again showing you're out of touch. For many making that 30k they can't afford the premiums either. Many are scraping by. My son is in that category and is trying to take care is a family on that amount. Luckily his exemption application was accepted. But my daughter's wasn't. She will pay a fine she can't afford. And auto enrolment us substandard plans doesn't help anyone, other than subsidizing other plans. The plan my son could have had was a purely catastrophic plan that still would have cost more than his car insurance and payment every month and had no coverage for prescriptions, which is his biggest medical cost. My penalty for being unemployed for 4 months is over $400 per month during that time frame when I had no income, but since my annual was higher I didn't qualify for any assistance either. It is a deeply flawed system and needs to be reversed or better replaced. But I don't ever see that happening. Too much political skin in this game. So much for our elected representatives making decisions based on what's best for the constituency.

Your daughter hot?

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

Why are Americans so paranoid of outsiders? Why are we so scared to look at countries like Germany, Japan, and France for health care solutions? These countries maintain top notch treatments and services and have had to deal with an aging population (which is what we are transitioning to). Why do people automatically assume that single payer means government owns everything and employs everyone involved in health care?

Why do we still maintain this false notion that our health care system is giving us superior results when in reality, we are at the lower end of the spectrum of industrialied nations by nearly every metric available? I'm not sure Americans realize that we are paying 6-7 percent more of our GDP than Canada, France, Japan, etc yet receiving worse results.

People don't realize how much of a drag on the economy our bloated healthcare system is. 6-7% of our GDP is roughly $1.2 TRILLION! Imagine how much good that could do to other sectors of the economy.

 

[babe]

It is not affordable, and Obama doesn't care.

It's like the laws criminalizing pot. As long as the power goes to the government, the people can go to Hell. Well, a concrete box with no sun and bad food and sit all day in orange plastic togas.

Obamacare runs the docs outta town and restricts care with inordinate regulations that actually prevent doctors from doing what needs to be done in many respects. And on the false pretense you are not the one really paying for it, you don't get to make the decisions.

 

[LogGrad98]

Your daughter hot?

Indeed.

Is yours?

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3mYrOnq2Z4&t=7s

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Again showing you're out of touch. For many making that 30k they can't afford the premiums either. Many are scraping by. My son is in that category and is trying to take care is a family on that amount. Luckily his exemption application was accepted. But my daughter's wasn't. She will pay a fine she can't afford. And auto enrolment us substandard plans doesn't help anyone, other than subsidizing other plans. The plan my son could have had was a purely catastrophic plan that still would have cost more than his car insurance and payment every month and had no coverage for prescriptions, which is his biggest medical cost. My penalty for being unemployed for 4 months is over $400 per month during that time frame when I had no income, but since my annual was higher I didn't qualify for any assistance either. It is a deeply flawed system and needs to be reversed or better replaced. But I don't ever see that happening. Too much political skin in this game. So much for our elected representatives making decisions based on what's best for the constituency.

And yet, one can easily find other anecdotes in which people can now find health insurance at a lower cost than they could before, while some who could not get health insurance at all can now get it.

There are very few, and probably no, policies that offer Pareto Optimal solutions (nobody is worse off while some are better off). Instead of offering pro and con anecdotes supporting either/or solutions, I'd like to see some rational discourse about costs/benefits and tradeoffs. For example, what is an acceptable tradeoff in terms of higher premiums vs. increased access? Republicans tend to focus on the premiums and ignore access while Democrats are more likely to focus on access and pay less attention to premiums. Personally, I'm willing to trade off premium or penalty costs for greater access. I'm pretty certain, for example, that the incremantal cost to Lograd's children from the penalty/tax is far less that the incremental cost to the child of someone else who can't get insurance to cover a pre-existing, expensive, and possibly deadly illness. I'm inclined in this case to think that the cost borne by the latter is higher and more socially relevant than the cost born by the former.

 

[DutchJazzer]

And yet, one can easily find other anecdotes in which people can now find health insurance at a lower cost than they could before, while some who could not get health insurance at all can now get it.

There are very few, and probably no, policies that offer Pareto Optimal solutions (nobody is worse off while some are better off). Instead of offering pro and con anecdotes supporting either/or solutions, I'd like to see some rational discourse about costs/benefits and tradeoffs. For example, what is an acceptable tradeoff in terms of higher premiums vs. increased access? Republicans tend to focus on the premiums and ignore access while Democrats are more likely to focus on access and pay less attention to premiums. Personally, I'm willing to trade off premium or penalty costs for greater access. I'm pretty certain, for example, that the incremantal cost to Lograd's children from the penalty/tax is far less that the incremental cost to the child of someone else who can't get insurance to cover a pre-existing, expensive, and possibly deadly illness. I'm inclined in this case to think that the cost borne by the latter is higher and more socially relevant than the cost born by the former.

but yet people who want freedom are forced to not be free and buy something!

 

[LogGrad98]

And yet, one can easily find other anecdotes in which people can now find health insurance at a lower cost than they could before, while some who could not get health insurance at all can now get it.

There are very few, and probably no, policies that offer Pareto Optimal solutions (nobody is worse off while some are better off). Instead of offering pro and con anecdotes supporting either/or solutions, I'd like to see some rational discourse about costs/benefits and tradeoffs. For example, what is an acceptable tradeoff in terms of higher premiums vs. increased access? Republicans tend to focus on the premiums and ignore access while Democrats are more likely to focus on access and pay less attention to premiums. Personally, I'm willing to trade off premium or penalty costs for greater access. I'm pretty certain, for example, that the incremantal cost to Lograd's children from the penalty/tax is far less that the incremental cost to the child of someone else who can't get insurance to cover a pre-existing, expensive, and possibly deadly illness. I'm inclined in this case to think that the cost borne by the latter is higher and more socially relevant than the cost born by the former.

I think you missed the part about my son not having coverage and choosing to pay the penalty for a year while we were out of the country because it was cheaper than any plan available, and due to the requirements placed on businesses his company decided to cut everyone's hours to avoid paying anything for benefits. They're are a lot of problems with the ACA as now constituted that need to be addressed. And idgaf what side of the road you're on. Everyone always takes a problem that affects us all and tries to turn it into a dem vs repub debate. Yes that dynamic is what makes it nearly impossible to come up with a viable solution. However to answer your point about pre-existing conditions. That part can easily be kept as a regulation while literally scrapping ALL of the rest of the ACA. It isn't an all or nothing proposition.

 

[The Thriller]

I think you missed the part about my son not having coverage and choosing to pay the penalty for a year while we were out of the country because it was cheaper than any plan available, and due to the requirements placed on businesses his company decided to cut everyone's hours to avoid paying anything for benefits. They're are a lot of problems with the ACA as now constituted that need to be addressed. And idgaf what side of the road you're on. Everyone always takes a problem that affects us all and tries to turn it into a dem vs repub debate. Yes that dynamic is what makes it nearly impossible to come up with a viable solution. However to answer your point about pre-existing conditions. That part can easily be kept as a regulation while literally scrapping ALL of the rest of the ACA. It isn't an all or nothing proposition.

Sounds to me like you should be a huge fan of single payer systems. Why should businesses waste so much time and energy worrying about paying for health care?

But in our system, they must. And if they cut hrs to provide their workers health care, how is that obamacare's fault?

Businesses cutting hrs because they don't want to provide benefits isn't obamacare's fault. Maybe your son shouldn't be such a Lazy *** and work for such a ****ty company? Why doesn't he go to school and make himself more marketable? Why doesn't he join a union? Why didn't employees band together and go on strike to get their benefits back?

I see so many people, like LG, who promote conservative ideas and bitch about obama. Yet the problems they encounter are due to their voting against their own interest/being too lazy to fight for their rights and services.

If you lose your benefits because you work at a ****ty company, how is that obamacare's fault?

Ultimately, If you don't want benefits tied to employment then you should be calling for a single payer system. So what do you say LG? Here's your chance buddy! Want a single payer? If not, don't bitch when businesses don't not want to provide health care benefits. Businesses aren't going to view their workers as investments, but fears that they should quickly use and dispose of. Unless a union forces them to change their way of thinking... but if your son is too lazy to fight for his benefits, why complain?

Freedom and prosperity were fought for in decades past. Now it seems like young people here feel entitled to them.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I think you missed the part about my son not having coverage and choosing to pay the penalty for a year while we were out of the country because it was cheaper than any plan available, and due to the requirements placed on businesses his company decided to cut everyone's hours to avoid paying anything for benefits. They're are a lot of problems with the ACA as now constituted that need to be addressed. And idgaf what side of the road you're on. Everyone always takes a problem that affects us all and tries to turn it into a dem vs repub debate. Yes that dynamic is what makes it nearly impossible to come up with a viable solution. However to answer your point about pre-existing conditions. That part can easily be kept as a regulation while literally scrapping ALL of the rest of the ACA. It isn't an all or nothing proposition.

The last part of your post is not correct. Requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions can only work IF the inurance pool is large enough to spread the risks and keep the cost to the insurer reasonable. If, however, people are allowed to opt out, and the healthy do so at a large rate, the insurance pool is not large enough, and insurers face losses having to cover pre-existing conditions. That's the basic reason for the ACA penalty. While it's not an all or nothing proposition, it is more complicated that you presume.

 

[The Thriller]

The last part of your post is not correct. Requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions can only work IF the inurance pool is large enough to spread the risks and keep the cost to the insurer reasonable. If, however, people are allowed to opt out, and the healthy do so at a large rate, the insurance pool is not large enough, and insurers face losses having to cover pre-existing conditions. That's the basic reason for the ACA penalty. While it's not an all or nothing proposition, it is more complicated that you presume.

Precisely.

All other industrialized nations provide universal coverage. All of them require individual mandates and strict price controls to keep costs down. After all the research I've done, I'm quite convinced that if we want universal coverage but keep insurance companies then we need to make them nonprofit entities and enact strict price controls.

People like LG act like the individual mandate is some socialist idea or outrage of freedom. The truth is, it's the only way to create pools large enough to pay for those who need health care the most.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Precisely.

All other industrialized nations provide universal coverage. All of them require individual mandates and strict price controls to keep costs down. After all the research I've done, I'm quite convinced that if we want universal coverage but keep insurance companies then we need to make them nonprofit entities and enact strict price controls.

People like LG act like the individual mandate is some socialist idea or outrage of freedom. The truth is, it's the only way to create pools large enough to pay for those who need health care the most.

i am mandated to get healthinsurance.


I DON'T WANT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

2016
United States
US Tax Dollars spent on Healthcare: $938 Billion (Medicaid, Medicare, ACA Subsidies, etc.)
Total US Population: $319 Million
Tax Dollars spent on healthcare per capita: $2,940

United Kingdom
UK Tax Dollars spent on Healthcare: $171 Billion (142 Billion Pounds)
Total UK Population: 64 Million
Tax Dollars spent on healthcare per capita: $2,671

The data above looks pretty comparable between tax spending on healthcare between the US and the UK. The difference is that the UK manages to provide UNIVERSAL CARE to it's constituents while in the US we have no such coverage. How this is even possible, I don't know. Arguing about Obamacare is meaningless. Everyone needs to focus on getting our system more in line with the rest of the world. Insurance companies may go under. Doctors may make a little less. Pharmaceutical companies may be less profitable. I DON'T CARE!!!

Any reasonable mind would look at the data above and conclude that our healthcare system needs a complete overhaul. Repealing Obamacare will not change this. Whatever plan Trump comes up with won't change it either. We need a single-payer system or at the least a government option.

 

[Miggs]

Indeed.

Is yours?

She's only two but I think there's potential there.

 

[DutchJazzer]

executive order signed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

that directs agency within government to ease the regulatory burden of Obamacare as they transition from repeal to replace

;m pharaphraising



SO BYE FELICIA!!!!!!!!!!!!