A Chink in the Armor of Obamacare

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: A Chink in the Armor of Obamacare

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    First, some people need to relieve themselves of the notion that basic health care is not a right we should be afforded as citizens of the U.S.

    Without this fundamental concept, the debate can never be resolved.  Either "all men are created equal", or they're not created equal. 



    hyperbole.

    First, some people need to understand that health insurance is not a right and some shouldn't have to pay for all to have it!

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: A Chink in the Armor of Obamacare

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    First, some people need to relieve themselves of the notion that basic health care is not a right we should be afforded as citizens of the U.S. 




    Heathcare in the US is a right and no one can be denied care.

    Heath Insurance is not a right; and some shouldn't have to pay for all with the IRS policing it!

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A Chink in the Armor of Obamacare

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    First, some people need to relieve themselves of the notion that basic health care is not a right we should be afforded as citizens of the U.S. 




    Heathcare in the US is a right and no one can be denied care.

    Heath Insurance is not a right; and some shouldn't have to pay for all with the IRS policing it!

     



    You don't get billed for things you have a right to.

     

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from AlleyCatBruin. Show AlleyCatBruin's posts

    Re: A Chink in the Armor of Obamacare

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    Government had already taken over health care before ACA. ACA only makes it worse. They already own the VA as actual government run health care. They provide health care insurance for everyone over 65. 

    You seem like the Govt should not own the VA. If not the Govt, then who should own it?You also seem like its bad that we take care of our senior citizens. I ask you again, if not the Govt, then who will take care of the medical needs of our seniors?

     



    Your assumption is that all vets and all seniors need the government to take care of them.  Tell me when that became the case.  

    People should take care of themselves.  This crazy standard that the liberals have that government knows better how to allocate my resources than I do is just stupid.



    How do you expect an elderly person to take care of his/her's self?

    Since veterans are the one's that have at one point or another in their lives stood guard or walked point while we all got a good nights sleep, it would be pretty low to ignore them in their time of need after they leave the service. Your attitude is selfish and petty. But, it's also the standard republican line.... 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: A Chink in the Armor of Obamacare

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    Government had already taken over health care before ACA. ACA only makes it worse. They already own the VA as actual government run health care. They provide health care insurance for everyone over 65. 

    You seem like the Govt should not own the VA. If not the Govt, then who should own it?You also seem like its bad that we take care of our senior citizens. I ask you again, if not the Govt, then who will take care of the medical needs of our seniors?

     



    I wasn't making a judgment, I was just stating the facts that government basically already runs health care. 

    As far as the VA goes, what about its track record would lead you to believe there is not a better way to take care of veterans and have their care financed? The government could just pay for their insurance and let them go to whomever they want for health care.

    Who is going to take care of our senior citizens if not for Medicare? Medicare is just insurance. I just read where Medicare announced they have to stop taking claims appeals because they are only about 400,000 behind.

    Medicare is a LOUSY deal. You pay into it for 45 years or whatever, and get no access to benefits. Then you still have to get health insurance as you get older too. Once you retire and can actually make a claim, you STILL have to pay. Plus the coverage is so bad most people had to buy supplemental coverage from a private insurer.

    You tell me - does that sound like a great plan or what???

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: A Chink in the Armor of Obamacare

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    First, some people need to relieve themselves of the notion that basic health care is not a right we should be afforded as citizens of the U.S. 




    Heathcare in the US is a right and no one can be denied care.

    Heath Insurance is not a right; and some shouldn't have to pay for all with the IRS policing it!

     



    You don't get billed for things you have a right to.

     



    Ah....so you think healthcare should be "free". Interesting. You do realize someone has to pay for it right? That bill would be in the form of higher taxes to pay for that "free" healthcare you're looking for if the US went to universal single payor govt run healthcare. Just sayin. 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: A Chink in the Armor of Obamacare

    A good debate on the ACA.

    Last Wednesday, Scott Gottlieb and I debated Jonathan Chait and Douglas Kamerow on this proposition: “Resolved: Obamacare Is Now Beyond Rescue.” I was feeling a little trepid, for three reasons: First, I’ve never done any formal debate; second, the resolution gave the “for” side a built-in handicap, as the “against” side just had to prove that Obamacare might not be completely beyond rescue; and third, we were debating on the Upper West Side. Now, I grew up on the Upper West Side and love it dearly. But for this particular resolution, it’s about the unfriendliest territory this side of Pyongyang.

    Nonetheless, I greatly enjoyed the debate. I’m not ashamed to admit that the other side had a lot of powerful moments. Kamerow, a doctor who is also a former assistant surgeon general, made good points about the problems with the previous status quo. In the other seat, Chait was as passionate, witty and well-reasoned in his arguments as ever. (You can read his account of the debate here.) Given the various difficulties, we went in assuming that we would lose, so we were pretty surprised and pleased when we won.

    What was the winning argument? We argued that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is an unstable program that doesn't deliver what was expected. For a lot of people, that hardly needs proving, given all the recent technical and legal gyrations. But for others, it does, and because most of them weren’t at the debate, let me elaborate. Scott spoke eloquently about the ways in which narrow networks and the focus on Medicaid are going to deliver an unacceptable quality of care. I talked about why this, among other things, makes the system so unstable.

    In a nutshell, Obamacare has so far fallen dramatically shorter than what was expected -- technically, and in almost every other way. Enrollment is below expectations: According to the data we have so far, more than half of the much-touted Medicaid expansion came from people who were already eligible before the health-care law passed, and this weekend, the Wall Street Journal reported that the overwhelming majority of people buying insurance through the exchanges seem to be folks who already had insurance. Coverage is less generous than many people expected, with narrower provider networks and higher deductibles. The promised $2,500 that the average family was told they could save on premiums has predictably failed to materialize. And of course, we now know that if you like your doctor and plan, there is no reason to think you can keep them. Which is one reason the law has not gotten any more popular since it passed.

    The administration and its supporters have been counting on the coverage expansion to put Obamacare beyond repeal. So what if the coverage expansion is anemic, the plans bare-bones, the website sort of a disaster? It’s a foundation upon which we can build -- and now that so many people have coverage, the thinking goes, Republicans will never dare to touch it. The inevitable problems can be fixed down the road.

    But it’s far from clear that this is true. The law is unpopular, not only with voters, but also apparently with the consumers who are supposed to buy insurance. The political forces that were supposed to guarantee its survival look weaker by the day. The Barack Obama administration is in emergency mode, pasting over political problems with administrative fixes of dubious legality, just to ensure the law’s bare survival -- which is now their incredibly low bar for “success.”

    Although the fixes may solve the shorter term political problems, however, they destabilize the markets, which also need to work to ensure the law’s survival. The president is destroying his own law in order to save it.

    Obamacare’s exchange facility was conceived as a “three-legged stool”: guaranteed issue, community rating, mandate. Guaranteed issue means that an insurer can’t refuse to sell you a policy. And community rating means that they can’t agree to sell you a policy -- for a million dollars. The problem is that if you set things up this way, it makes a lot of sense to wait to buy insurance until you get sick, at which point premiums start spiraling into the stratosphere and coverage drops. Enter the mandate: You can’t wait. You have to buy when you’re healthy or pay a fine.

    There are actually other legs -- the subsidies, in particular, are needed so that you’re not ordering people to buy a product they can’t afford. But it doesn’t really matter how many legs the stool has; what matters is that it needs all of them. Take one away, and the whole thing is in danger of collapsing.

    Unfortunately, whenever someone has voiced discontent with the way things are going, the administration has taken a hacksaw to another leg. For example, some folks who had policies they liked before were being forced to drop them and buy new policies they didn’t like so much. That caused an outcry, followed by an emergency grandfathering rule. Other major emergency fixes include:

    · A one-year delay of the employer mandate (which our own Ezra Klein has shown is critical to both coverage expansion and cost control). It seems unclear that this will ever go into effect, as the regulatory difficulties of tracking compliance are enormous, and enforcing it will trigger unpopular changes in working hours and other conditions for many workers.

    · Numerous extensions of enrollment and payment deadlines, even though these have led to consumer confusion.

    · Changes in the rules governing the “risk corridor” programs that cover excess losses at insurers, with more potentially in the works. This buys peace with the insurers, but is going to be incredibly politically difficult for the administration to defend when the costs become clear.

    Why does this put the law beyond rescue?

    First, let’s define what we mean by “beyond rescue.” Is Obamacare going to be repealed in its entirety? No. Some of the provisions, such as letting parents keep their kids on their insurance until they’re 26 years old, have no chance of being repealed. Others, such as the Medicaid expansion, will almost certainly stand in some form, though I could see Medicaid being block-granted and then slowly whittled away under another administration. The fate of other pieces, such as the cost-control procedures and the exchanges, is still too cloudy to predict.

    By “beyond rescue,” I mean that the original vision of the law will not be fulfilled -- the cost-controlling, delivery-system-improving, health-enhancing, deficit-reducing, highly popular, tightly integrated (and smoothly functioning) system for ensuring that everyone who wants coverage can get it.

    The law still lacks the political legitimacy to survive in the long term. And in a bid to increase that legitimacy, the administration has set two very dangerous precedents: It has convinced voters that no unpopular provisions should ever be allowed to take effect, and it has asserted an executive right to rewrite the law, which Republicans can just as easily use to unravel this tangled web altogether.

    Many of the commentators I’ve read seem to think that the worst is over, as far as unpopular surprises. In fact, the worst is yet to come. Here’s what’s ahead:

    · 2014: Small-business policy cancellations. This year, the small-business market is going to get hit with the policy cancellations that roiled the individual market last year. Some firms will get better deals, but others will find that their coverage is being canceled in favor of more expensive policies that don’t cover as many of the doctors or procedures that they want. This is going to be a rolling problem throughout the year.

    · Summer 2014: Insurers get a sizable chunk of money from the government to cover any excess losses. When the costs are published, this is going to be wildly unpopular: The administration has spent three years saying that Obamacare was the antidote to abuses by Big, Bad Insurance Companies, and suddenly it’s a mechanism to funnel taxpayer money to them?

    · Fall 2014: New premiums are announced.

    · 2014 and onward: Medicare reimbursement cuts eat into hospital margins, triggering a lot of lobbying and sad ads about how Beloved Local Hospital may have to close.

    · Spring 2015: The Internal Revenue Service starts collecting individual mandate penalties: 1 percent of income in the first year. That’s going to be a nasty shock to folks who thought the penalty was just $95. I, like many other analysts, expect the administration to announce a temporary delay sometime after April 1, 2014.

    · Spring 2015: The IRS demands that people whose income was higher than they projected pay back their excess subsidies. This could be thousands of dollars.

    · Spring 2015: Cuts to Medicare Advantage, which the administration punted on in 2013, are scheduled to go into effect. This will reduce benefits currently enjoyed by millions of seniors, which is why they didn’t let them go into effect this year.

    · Fall 2015: This is when expert Bob Laszewski says insurers will begin exiting the market if the exchange policies aren’t profitable.

    · Fall 2017: Companies and unions start learning whether their plans will get hit by the “Cadillac tax,” a stiff excise tax on expensive policies that will hit plans with generous benefits or an older and sicker employee base. Expect a lot of companies and unions to radically decrease benefits and increase cost-sharing as a result.

    · January 2018: The temporary risk-adjustment plans, which the administration is relying on to keep insurers in the marketplaces even if their customer pool is older and sicker than projected, run out. Now if insurers take losses, they just lose the money.

    · Fall 2018: Buyers find out that subsidy growth is capped for next year’s premiums; instead of simply being pegged to the price of the second-cheapest silver plan, whatever that cost is, their growth is fixed. This will show up in higher premiums for families -- and, potentially, in an adverse-selection death spiral.

    Each of these is likely to trigger either public outcry or providers leaving the market (leading to public outcry). Policy analysts can say that this is unfortunate but necessary -- that you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. Fair enough, but the administration has been manifestly unwilling to tell the eggs that. Instead, it’s emergency administrative fixes for everyone. And we sure can’t count on Republicans to save Obamacare by tackling the egg lobby.

    Instead, I expect that the administration is going to issue “temporary” administrative fixes for most of the law’s unpopular bits -- just as it has so far. That’s not going to get any easier as midterms and then a presidential election creep closer. And then Republicans will make the “temporary” fixes permanent. And by the time everyone’s done “fixing” the original grand vision, not much of it will be left. This is why I argued that Obamacare, the vision, is now beyond rescue. And a surprising number of Upper West Siders apparently agreed with me.

     

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-21/resolved-obamacare-is-now-beyond-rescue.html

     

     

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A Chink in the Armor of Obamacare

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    First, some people need to relieve themselves of the notion that basic health care is not a right we should be afforded as citizens of the U.S. 




    Heathcare in the US is a right and no one can be denied care.

    Heath Insurance is not a right; and some shouldn't have to pay for all with the IRS policing it!

     



    You don't get billed for things you have a right to.

     



    Ah....so you think healthcare should be "free". Interesting. You do realize someone has to pay for it right? That bill would be in the form of higher taxes to pay for that "free" healthcare you're looking for if the US went to universal single payor govt run healthcare. Just sayin. 



    If you consider it a right, you should think it should be free.

    I don't actually consider healthcare a right.  But I am for single-payor, and I'm willing to pay higher taxes.  My family uses about $1,500 worth of health care each year, but we pay  more than $8,000.  Is that really any different than being taxed?

    BTW, if pharmacists could prescribe anti-biotics, that $1500 would drop to about $500.  We can buy ammo at wal-mart, but I can't get anti-biotics without a prescription, even if my wife went through it all a week earlier for her strep throat.

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: A Chink in the Armor of Obamacare

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    First, some people need to relieve themselves of the notion that basic health care is not a right we should be afforded as citizens of the U.S. 




    Heathcare in the US is a right and no one can be denied care.

    Heath Insurance is not a right; and some shouldn't have to pay for all with the IRS policing it!

     



    You don't get billed for things you have a right to.

     



    Ah....so you think healthcare should be "free". Interesting. You do realize someone has to pay for it right? That bill would be in the form of higher taxes to pay for that "free" healthcare you're looking for if the US went to universal single payor govt run healthcare. Just sayin. 



    If you consider it a right, you should think it should be free.

    I don't actually consider healthcare a right.  But I am for single-payor, and I'm willing to pay higher taxes.  My family uses about $1,500 worth of health care each year, but we pay  more than $8,000.  Is that really any different than being taxed?

    BTW, if pharmacists could prescribe anti-biotics, that $1500 would drop to about $500.  We can buy ammo at wal-mart, but I can't get anti-biotics without a prescription, even if my wife went through it all a week earlier for her strep throat.

     

     

    How can you not see health care as a right, yet be for single payer, which essentially makes it a right?

    If your family uses only $1,500, but pays $8,000 per year, don't you think it would be better to pay out of pocket and buy a catastrophic plan? 

    How does Obamacare address your particular situation?

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A Chink in the Armor of Obamacare

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    First, some people need to relieve themselves of the notion that basic health care is not a right we should be afforded as citizens of the U.S. 

     




    Heathcare in the US is a right and no one can be denied care.

     

    Heath Insurance is not a right; and some shouldn't have to pay for all with the IRS policing it!

     



    You don't get billed for things you have a right to.

     



    Ah....so you think healthcare should be "free". Interesting. You do realize someone has to pay for it right? That bill would be in the form of higher taxes to pay for that "free" healthcare you're looking for if the US went to universal single payor govt run healthcare. Just sayin. 



    If you consider it a right, you should think it should be free.

    I don't actually consider healthcare a right.  But I am for single-payor, and I'm willing to pay higher taxes.  My family uses about $1,500 worth of health care each year, but we pay  more than $8,000.  Is that really any different than being taxed?

    BTW, if pharmacists could prescribe anti-biotics, that $1500 would drop to about $500.  We can buy ammo at wal-mart, but I can't get anti-biotics without a prescription, even if my wife went through it all a week earlier for her strep throat.

     

     

    How can you not see health care as a right, yet be for single payer, which essentially makes it a right?

    If your family uses only $1,500, but pays $8,000 per year, don't you think it would be better to pay out of pocket and buy a catastrophic plan? 

    How does Obamacare address your particular situation?




    I think of health care like I think of a law enforcement or a fire department.  I pay taxes that support the services, but when I actually need the service, I am very grateful to the people providing the service.  My rights are my rights - I'm not grateful to anybody when I vote, or exercise speech.  

    I hope to go my whole life without needing my local fire department.  But if I do, I won't lament for a second the tax dollars spent to support them, because others in my community did need them, desperately, at one of the lowest moments in their lives.  That's exactly how I view health care.

    IMO your question about the catastrophic plan is exactly why we need Obamacare (or single-payor).  If I look at what I spend on health care vs what I pay for insurance, it looks like I'm over-spending, right?  It looks like I'm on the wrong plan?  So if I adjust my plan accordingly, and something happens to me, or my wife or kids, I'm under-insured.  And if that 'something' is a chronic condition, I can't ever switch plans.   That's why I always contended that insurance is not really a free-market model - you can't make a needs-based assesssment of your insurance situation, without a chrystal ball.  Nobody wants less insurance.  

    With Obamacare, I can purchase a 'bronze' plan off the exchange.  If something horrible happens, the most I ever pay is $6K / year ($12K if something horrible happens to two members of my family).  And if something horrible and chronic happens, I can switch to a 'platinum' plan for the following year - no questions asked.

     

     

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: A Chink in the Armor of Obamacare

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    First, some people need to relieve themselves of the notion that basic health care is not a right we should be afforded as citizens of the U.S. 

     




    Heathcare in the US is a right and no one can be denied care.

     

    Heath Insurance is not a right; and some shouldn't have to pay for all with the IRS policing it!

     



    You don't get billed for things you have a right to.

     



    Ah....so you think healthcare should be "free". Interesting. You do realize someone has to pay for it right? That bill would be in the form of higher taxes to pay for that "free" healthcare you're looking for if the US went to universal single payor govt run healthcare. Just sayin. 



    If you consider it a right, you should think it should be free.

    I don't actually consider healthcare a right.  But I am for single-payor, and I'm willing to pay higher taxes.  My family uses about $1,500 worth of health care each year, but we pay  more than $8,000.  Is that really any different than being taxed?

    BTW, if pharmacists could prescribe anti-biotics, that $1500 would drop to about $500.  We can buy ammo at wal-mart, but I can't get anti-biotics without a prescription, even if my wife went through it all a week earlier for her strep throat.

     

     

    How can you not see health care as a right, yet be for single payer, which essentially makes it a right?

    If your family uses only $1,500, but pays $8,000 per year, don't you think it would be better to pay out of pocket and buy a catastrophic plan? 

    How does Obamacare address your particular situation?




    I think of health care like I think of a law enforcement or a fire department.  I pay taxes that support the services, but when I actually need the service, I am very grateful to the people providing the service.  My rights are my rights - I'm not grateful to anybody when I vote, or exercise speech.  

    I hope to go my whole life without needing my local fire department.  But if I do, I won't lament for a second the tax dollars spent to support them, because others in my community did need them, desperately, at one of the lowest moments in their lives.  That's exactly how I view health care.

    IMO your question about the catastrophic plan is exactly why we need Obamacare (or single-payor).  If I look at what I spend on health care vs what I pay for insurance, it looks like I'm over-spending, right?  It looks like I'm on the wrong plan?  So if I adjust my plan accordingly, and something happens to me, or my wife or kids, I'm under-insured.  And if that 'something' is a chronic condition, I can't ever switch plans.   That's why I always contended that insurance is not really a free-market model - you can't make a needs-based assesssment of your insurance situation, without a chrystal ball.  Nobody wants less insurance.  

    With Obamacare, I can purchase a 'bronze' plan off the exchange.  If something horrible happens, the most I ever pay is $6K / year ($12K if something horrible happens to two members of my family).  And if something horrible and chronic happens, I can switch to a 'platinum' plan for the following year - no questions asked.

     

     

     



    I understand your perspective.  however, health care is not like policing or the fire department, as your chronic care scenario indicates, or at least is an example.

    As far as your wanting Obamacare instead of buying the insurance you need, isn't that just throwing the cost of protecting your family against a catastrohpic health care onto the backs of the rest of us?  If it is a concern, then why not pay for it?

    I guess it boils down to where one's personal philosophy sits.  I don't see others are responsible for meeting my needs, you do.  Now, if you were truly indigent, that would be a different story.  But, if you are able to pay for the insurance you need, then you should.  In fact, you have a moral obligation to do so IMO, and to NOT lay it on the backs of everyone else.  Your example lays out that your desire is to game the system, and to have someone else pick up the tab. That's not cool.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: A Chink in the Armor of Obamacare

    Some people seem to think that disease and injury only happen to those who can afford treatment...

    ...or that the ability to pay for said treatment - much less to pay for the (relative) financial protection of health insurance - is a defining trait of those who should get it.

    Medicine is inherently a public institution, and its practice must always be in the interests of the public health...and that includes access to basic health care.

     

     

     

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: A Chink in the Armor of Obamacare

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    First, some people need to relieve themselves of the notion that basic health care is not a right we should be afforded as citizens of the U.S. 

     




    Heathcare in the US is a right and no one can be denied care.

     

    Heath Insurance is not a right; and some shouldn't have to pay for all with the IRS policing it!

     



    You don't get billed for things you have a right to.

     



    Ah....so you think healthcare should be "free". Interesting. You do realize someone has to pay for it right? That bill would be in the form of higher taxes to pay for that "free" healthcare you're looking for if the US went to universal single payor govt run healthcare. Just sayin. 



    If you consider it a right, you should think it should be free.

    I don't actually consider healthcare a right.  But I am for single-payor, and I'm willing to pay higher taxes.  My family uses about $1,500 worth of health care each year, but we pay  more than $8,000.  Is that really any different than being taxed?

    BTW, if pharmacists could prescribe anti-biotics, that $1500 would drop to about $500.  We can buy ammo at wal-mart, but I can't get anti-biotics without a prescription, even if my wife went through it all a week earlier for her strep throat.

     

     

    How can you not see health care as a right, yet be for single payer, which essentially makes it a right?

    If your family uses only $1,500, but pays $8,000 per year, don't you think it would be better to pay out of pocket and buy a catastrophic plan? 

    How does Obamacare address your particular situation?




    I think of health care like I think of a law enforcement or a fire department.  I pay taxes that support the services, but when I actually need the service, I am very grateful to the people providing the service.  My rights are my rights - I'm not grateful to anybody when I vote, or exercise speech.  

    I hope to go my whole life without needing my local fire department.  But if I do, I won't lament for a second the tax dollars spent to support them, because others in my community did need them, desperately, at one of the lowest moments in their lives.  That's exactly how I view health care.

    IMO your question about the catastrophic plan is exactly why we need Obamacare (or single-payor).  If I look at what I spend on health care vs what I pay for insurance, it looks like I'm over-spending, right?  It looks like I'm on the wrong plan?  So if I adjust my plan accordingly, and something happens to me, or my wife or kids, I'm under-insured.  And if that 'something' is a chronic condition, I can't ever switch plans.   That's why I always contended that insurance is not really a free-market model - you can't make a needs-based assesssment of your insurance situation, without a chrystal ball.  Nobody wants less insurance.  

    With Obamacare, I can purchase a 'bronze' plan off the exchange.  If something horrible happens, the most I ever pay is $6K / year ($12K if something horrible happens to two members of my family).  And if something horrible and chronic happens, I can switch to a 'platinum' plan for the following year - no questions asked.

     

     

     



    I understand your perspective.  however, health care is not like policing or the fire department, as your chronic care scenario indicates, or at least is an example.

    As far as your wanting Obamacare instead of buying the insurance you need, isn't that just throwing the cost of protecting your family against a catastrohpic health care onto the backs of the rest of us?  If it is a concern, then why not pay for it?

    I guess it boils down to where one's personal philosophy sits.  I don't see others are responsible for meeting my needs, you do.  Now, if you were truly indigent, that would be a different story.  But, if you are able to pay for the insurance you need, then you should.  In fact, you have a moral obligation to do so IMO, and to NOT lay it on the backs of everyone else.  Your example lays out that your desire is to game the system, and to have someone else pick up the tab. That's not cool.



    I never trusted my insurance. Before Obamacare you always ran the risk that when you really needed something, you weren't going to be covered.  There was a team of people whose job it was to invalidate your policy when it became a losing policy financially.  There are countless horror stories in the press, but I can give you an example from my own life - my sister was denied a surgery she needed because she had 3 urinary tract infections over the course of 30 years.   That's what they considered a pre-existing condition.  Why didn't they investigate this stuff when they started taking your money?  It was always when you actually needed help.

    As to who pays for it all, keep in mind, I've paid a ton of taxes over the years.  And that means I've paid for a lot of health care for a lot of people - not just the indigent and the elderly, but state & federal employees, military, veterans - even prisoners.  If you're saying, with that in mind, that if I get sick and need some help, I'm SOL.  I think that's not cool.  And every middle-class American who buys his own insurance is in the same boat on this one. 

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from AlleyCatBruin. Show AlleyCatBruin's posts

    Re: A Chink in the Armor of Obamacare

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    Government had already taken over health care before ACA. ACA only makes it worse. They already own the VA as actual government run health care. They provide health care insurance for everyone over 65. 

    You seem like the Govt should not own the VA. If not the Govt, then who should own it?You also seem like its bad that we take care of our senior citizens. I ask you again, if not the Govt, then who will take care of the medical needs of our seniors?

     



    I wasn't making a judgment, I was just stating the facts that government basically already runs health care. 

    As far as the VA goes, what about its track record would lead you to believe there is not a better way to take care of veterans and have their care financed? The government could just pay for their insurance and let them go to whomever they want for health care.

    Who is going to take care of our senior citizens if not for Medicare? Medicare is just insurance. I just read where Medicare announced they have to stop taking claims appeals because they are only about 400,000 behind.

    Medicare is a LOUSY deal. You pay into it for 45 years or whatever, and get no access to benefits. Then you still have to get health insurance as you get older too. Once you retire and can actually make a claim, you STILL have to pay. Plus the coverage is so bad most people had to buy supplemental coverage from a private insurer.

    You tell me - does that sound like a great plan or what???


    You make my case for universal healthcare:)....

    As for your comments on the VA.... It's track record was awful under republican administrations. The VA Secretary is now cabinet level position and actually is funded in the federal budget (not the case under DUHbya).  We promise our Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Marines that we will take care of their service connected illnesses or injuries once they leave the service. You are proof that the right does not care about the military.

     

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: A Chink in the Armor of Obamacare

    In response to slomag's comment:

     There are countless horror stories in the press, but I can give you an example from my own life - my sister was denied a surgery she needed because she had 3 urinary tract infections over the course of 30 years.   That's what they considered a pre-existing condition.  Why didn't they investigate this stuff when they started taking your money?  It was always when you actually needed help.




    They tried to deny coverage for an X-ray taken of my sister's arm after she sledded into a tree and began crying hysterically as if it were broken.

    Their reason: the X-ray revealed the arm wasn't broken. So, they said, it wasn't medically necessary.

     

    Eventually they relented, but I distinctly remember my parents fighting them over it ad nauseum.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: A Chink in the Armor of Obamacare

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     There are countless horror stories in the press, but I can give you an example from my own life - my sister was denied a surgery she needed because she had 3 urinary tract infections over the course of 30 years.   That's what they considered a pre-existing condition.  Why didn't they investigate this stuff when they started taking your money?  It was always when you actually needed help.

     




     

    They tried to deny coverage for an X-ray taken of my sister's arm after she sledded into a tree and began crying hysterically as if it were broken.

    Their reason: the X-ray revealed the arm wasn't broken. So, they said, it wasn't medically necessary.

     

    Eventually they relented, but I distinctly remember my parents fighting them over it ad nauseum.



    Never heard of such a thing. Twenty something years in the industry and that's a first. What carrier was this? No where in any insurance carrier is it written that only x-rays that show broken bones will be covered. Otherwise no deal. I've had countless x-rays over the years that showed no broken bones and they were all covered by insurance. Last time was for my jaw about 15 years ago. Thought it was broken, turned out it wasn't. It was covered. You must have been on a s h i t t y health insurance plan for them to try and not cover it.

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: A Chink in the Armor of Obamacare

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    I guess it boils down to where one's personal philosophy sits.  I don't see others are responsible for meeting my needs, you do.  Now, if you were truly indigent, that would be a different story.  But, if you are able to pay for the insurance you need, then you should.  In fact, you have a moral obligation to do so IMO, and to NOT lay it on the backs of everyone else.  Your example lays out that your desire is to game the system, and to have someone else pick up the tab. That's not cool.



    So let me get this straight.

    The person who violates his "moral obligation" to buy insurance, gets in an accident, is treated in the ER, cannot pay his bill, the hospital recoups the cost by charging more to insurers, who respond by raising your premiums.....

    ...that person is not "gaming the system, and to have someone else pick up the tab"?

     

    That's what? Freedoms?

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: A Chink in the Armor of Obamacare

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    []

    In response to slomag's comment:

    []

     There are countless horror stories in the press, but I can give you an example from my own life - my sister was denied a surgery she needed because she had 3 urinary tract infections over the course of 30 years.   That's what they considered a pre-existing condition.  Why didn't they investigate this stuff when they started taking your money?  It was always when you actually needed help.

    []

    They tried to deny coverage for an X-ray taken of my sister's arm after she sledded into a tree and began crying hysterically as if it were broken.

    Their reason: the X-ray revealed the arm wasn't broken. So, they said, it wasn't medically necessary.

    Eventually they relented, but I distinctly remember my parents fighting them over it ad nauseum.

    []

    Never heard of such a thing. Twenty something years in the industry and that's a first. What carrier was this? No where in any insurance carrier is it written that only x-rays that show broken bones will be covered. Otherwise no deal. I've had countless x-rays over the years that showed no broken bones and they were all covered by insurance. Last time was for my jaw about 15 years ago. Thought it was broken, turned out it wasn't. It was covered. You must have been on a s h i t t y health insurance plan for them to try and not cover it.




     

    The carrier was whoever covered U.Cinn. professors a few decades ago (my father's primary job back then was doing research based on NIH grants, but he also taught medicine at the university, and saw some patients).

    Hey, playing with liquid nitrogen as a kid was pretty cool... 

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: A Chink in the Armor of Obamacare

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    First, some people need to relieve themselves of the notion that basic health care is not a right we should be afforded as citizens of the U.S. 

     




    Heathcare in the US is a right and no one can be denied care.

     

    Heath Insurance is not a right; and some shouldn't have to pay for all with the IRS policing it!

     



    You don't get billed for things you have a right to.

     



    Ah....so you think healthcare should be "free". Interesting. You do realize someone has to pay for it right? That bill would be in the form of higher taxes to pay for that "free" healthcare you're looking for if the US went to universal single payor govt run healthcare. Just sayin. 



    If you consider it a right, you should think it should be free.

    I don't actually consider healthcare a right.  But I am for single-payor, and I'm willing to pay higher taxes.  My family uses about $1,500 worth of health care each year, but we pay  more than $8,000.  Is that really any different than being taxed?

    BTW, if pharmacists could prescribe anti-biotics, that $1500 would drop to about $500.  We can buy ammo at wal-mart, but I can't get anti-biotics without a prescription, even if my wife went through it all a week earlier for her strep throat.

     

     

    How can you not see health care as a right, yet be for single payer, which essentially makes it a right?

    If your family uses only $1,500, but pays $8,000 per year, don't you think it would be better to pay out of pocket and buy a catastrophic plan? 

    How does Obamacare address your particular situation?




    I think of health care like I think of a law enforcement or a fire department.  I pay taxes that support the services, but when I actually need the service, I am very grateful to the people providing the service.  My rights are my rights - I'm not grateful to anybody when I vote, or exercise speech.  

    I hope to go my whole life without needing my local fire department.  But if I do, I won't lament for a second the tax dollars spent to support them, because others in my community did need them, desperately, at one of the lowest moments in their lives.  That's exactly how I view health care.

    IMO your question about the catastrophic plan is exactly why we need Obamacare (or single-payor).  If I look at what I spend on health care vs what I pay for insurance, it looks like I'm over-spending, right?  It looks like I'm on the wrong plan?  So if I adjust my plan accordingly, and something happens to me, or my wife or kids, I'm under-insured.  And if that 'something' is a chronic condition, I can't ever switch plans.   That's why I always contended that insurance is not really a free-market model - you can't make a needs-based assesssment of your insurance situation, without a chrystal ball.  Nobody wants less insurance.  

    With Obamacare, I can purchase a 'bronze' plan off the exchange.  If something horrible happens, the most I ever pay is $6K / year ($12K if something horrible happens to two members of my family).  And if something horrible and chronic happens, I can switch to a 'platinum' plan for the following year - no questions asked.

     

     

     



    I understand your perspective.  however, health care is not like policing or the fire department, as your chronic care scenario indicates, or at least is an example.

    As far as your wanting Obamacare instead of buying the insurance you need, isn't that just throwing the cost of protecting your family against a catastrohpic health care onto the backs of the rest of us?  If it is a concern, then why not pay for it?

    I guess it boils down to where one's personal philosophy sits.  I don't see others are responsible for meeting my needs, you do.  Now, if you were truly indigent, that would be a different story.  But, if you are able to pay for the insurance you need, then you should.  In fact, you have a moral obligation to do so IMO, and to NOT lay it on the backs of everyone else.  Your example lays out that your desire is to game the system, and to have someone else pick up the tab. That's not cool.



    I never trusted my insurance. Before Obamacare you always ran the risk that when you really needed something, you weren't going to be covered.  There was a team of people whose job it was to invalidate your policy when it became a losing policy financially.  There are countless horror stories in the press, but I can give you an example from my own life - my sister was denied a surgery she needed because she had 3 urinary tract infections over the course of 30 years.   That's what they considered a pre-existing condition.  Why didn't they investigate this stuff when they started taking your money?  It was always when you actually needed help.

    As to who pays for it all, keep in mind, I've paid a ton of taxes over the years.  And that means I've paid for a lot of health care for a lot of people - not just the indigent and the elderly, but state & federal employees, military, veterans - even prisoners.  If you're saying, with that in mind, that if I get sick and need some help, I'm SOL.  I think that's not cool.  And every middle-class American who buys his own insurance is in the same boat on this one. 

     



    I hear you on insurance companies.  I have had my share of issues, but prefer that system to a political favoritism or gaming the system approach.  but, do you really think the government is going to give you a better shake than the insurance companies?  I think that is wishful thinking.  Look at Canada, look at the UK.  Longer lines, worse outcomes.

    i,m specifically NOT saying if you get sick you are SOL.  I am saying if you are concerned about that, but the insurance you need that addresses that concern.  Don't go high deductible UNTIL something happens and then do the belly flop, putting yourself into a better plan using the preexisting  condition as it was  not intended.

    to a large extent, you are an example of why government should not be involved in health care as much has they are.  It brings out people complaining that they have paid for everyone else, so they scheme to get theirs.

    You are unwilling to be responsible, choosing to minimize your financial exposure, and then expect the rest of us to pick up the tab for your lack of taking care of yourself should something happen for which you are not covered.

    that's just how I see it.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: A Chink in the Armor of Obamacare

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    First, some people need to relieve themselves of the notion that basic health care is not a right we should be afforded as citizens of the U.S. 




    Heathcare in the US is a right and no one can be denied care.

    Heath Insurance is not a right; and some shouldn't have to pay for all with the IRS policing it!

     



    You don't get billed for things you have a right to.

     



    Ah....so you think healthcare should be "free". Interesting. You do realize someone has to pay for it right? That bill would be in the form of higher taxes to pay for that "free" healthcare you're looking for if the US went to universal single payor govt run healthcare. Just sayin. 



    If you consider it a right, you should think it should be free.

    I don't actually consider healthcare a right.  But I am for single-payor, and I'm willing to pay higher taxes.  My family uses about $1,500 worth of health care each year, but we pay  more than $8,000.  Is that really any different than being taxed?

    BTW, if pharmacists could prescribe anti-biotics, that $1500 would drop to about $500.  We can buy ammo at wal-mart, but I can't get anti-biotics without a prescription, even if my wife went through it all a week earlier for her strep throat.

     



    Ah...so you think you can self-diagnos now? Gotcha....sigh

    and you realize nothing is free right???

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: A Chink in the Armor of Obamacare

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    First, some people need to relieve themselves of the notion that basic health care is not a right we should be afforded as citizens of the U.S. 

     




    Heathcare in the US is a right and no one can be denied care.

     

    Heath Insurance is not a right; and some shouldn't have to pay for all with the IRS policing it!

     



    You don't get billed for things you have a right to.

     



    Ah....so you think healthcare should be "free". Interesting. You do realize someone has to pay for it right? That bill would be in the form of higher taxes to pay for that "free" healthcare you're looking for if the US went to universal single payor govt run healthcare. Just sayin. 



    If you consider it a right, you should think it should be free.

    I don't actually consider healthcare a right.  But I am for single-payor, and I'm willing to pay higher taxes.  My family uses about $1,500 worth of health care each year, but we pay  more than $8,000.  Is that really any different than being taxed?

    BTW, if pharmacists could prescribe anti-biotics, that $1500 would drop to about $500.  We can buy ammo at wal-mart, but I can't get anti-biotics without a prescription, even if my wife went through it all a week earlier for her strep throat.

     



    Ah...so you think you can self-diagnos now? Gotcha....sigh

    and you realize nothing is free right???




    There are a lot of reasons that antibiotics should not be sold over the counter. Certain people can't take certain types and certain types of antibiotics work better for certain infections. In other words it's not as simple as a headache or a cold.

    Added to that, there is a real and present danger in the overuse of antibiotics. Only a doctor can diagnose whether an infection is bacterial or viral. Antibiotics are useless against a virus. Most infections that people want antibiotics for clear up on their own in about the same time anyhow.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: A Chink in the Armor of Obamacare

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

     There are countless horror stories in the press, but I can give you an example from my own life - my sister was denied a surgery she needed because she had 3 urinary tract infections over the course of 30 years.   That's what they considered a pre-existing condition.  Why didn't they investigate this stuff when they started taking your money?  It was always when you actually needed help.

     




     

    They tried to deny coverage for an X-ray taken of my sister's arm after she sledded into a tree and began crying hysterically as if it were broken.

    Their reason: the X-ray revealed the arm wasn't broken. So, they said, it wasn't medically necessary.

     

    Eventually they relented, but I distinctly remember my parents fighting them over it ad nauseum.



    Never heard of such a thing. Twenty something years in the industry and that's a first. What carrier was this? No where in any insurance carrier is it written that only x-rays that show broken bones will be covered. Otherwise no deal. I've had countless x-rays over the years that showed no broken bones and they were all covered by insurance. Last time was for my jaw about 15 years ago. Thought it was broken, turned out it wasn't. It was covered. You must have been on a s h i t t y health insurance plan for them to try and not cover it.

     




    I completely believe WDYWN. Many..many years ago we had insurance ( I think it was called something like private health care systems- a self insurance thing) and for the most part we had to pay for everything and then submit claims to get reimbursed. With a son and two stepsons, it was like a part time job filing and following up on claims and fighting for reimbursement of the simplest things..which were often denied first then paid after long battles.

    Thankfully..I believe these types of insurance plans no longer exist in MA. Now I have great insurance for which I am very grateful.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share