People's Alternative to Obamacare

[really?_ILivehere]

If anyone needs to or desires to get down to facts on Zer0care, there's a fella here in Illinois who is pretty sharp on the subject.

 

I met him on another forum which is ultra-conservative. So depending on what side of the aisle you associate with, you'll either appreciate his free information or you'll cry foul and run to hug The Narcissist in Chief.

 

http://csteventucker.wordpress.com/

[dorvinion]

Do you consider a corporation that gets federal subsidies, "welfare" too?

 

The fact is, a lot of people will be eligible for a subsidy, if they buy insurance from the exchanges.

 

Welfare is welfare no matter who it goes to.

We provide welfare to the absolutely impoverished country of South Korea to keep the much wealthier North Koreans from crossing the line.

We provide welfare to the defense contractors when we buy airplanes and send them to the bone-yard upon delivery.

We provide welfare to companies when we give them money to make things people don't want (Chevy Volt, Tesla automobiles)

We provide welfare to companies when we keep them from going under due to their inability to compete (General Motors, Chrysler)

We provide welfare to logging/mining/oil companies when Gov charge way below fair market value to lease lands for resource extraction.

We provide welfare to farmers and ag companies when we tell them to plant FOOD and turn it into FUEL that is actually worse for the environment than the gasoline its supposed to replace.

We provide welfare to people don't wrap it before they tap it because it feels better bareback.

 

 

If welfare did not exist the Federal budget would be about 70% smaller than it is and we'd all be a fair bit better off.

We'd be better off because welfare sends false signals to markets.

 

 

The fact is a lot of people would not need the obamacare welfare if obamacare actually allowed people to buy insurance.

 

People don't need "insurance" for expected expenses of less than couple thousand bucks a year...they need to make sure they have that covered before they get the new iPhone and its $1200 a year contract.

 

People need insurance for when someone sends them a five figure+ bill for services that are not expected.

[really?_ILivehere]

Under "alternatives to obombacare"

 

if your 2013 MAGI – Modified Adjusted Gross Income – (income after taxes and retirement contributions) is less than the following:

 

$46,960 for an individual

$62,040 for a couple

$78,120 for a family of three

$94,200 for a family of four

$110,280 for a family of five

$126,360 for a family of six

 

you will qualify for OPM – ‘Other Peoples Money’ – to artificially lower the high cost of PPACA “Qualified Health Plans”. Obama administration officials refer to this money as a ‘subsidy’. Keep in mind, those who are just below those aforementioned levels may still stay pay more in premium than they would for a plan purchased outside the HIX. Find out if you qualify for a ‘subsidy’ by running your own quotes using my private carrier links below:

[jagt48]

Do you consider a corporation that gets federal subsidies, "welfare" too?

 

The fact is, a lot of people will be eligible for a subsidy, if they buy insurance from the exchanges.

 

Definitely yes!

 

 

 

 

Then, why don't I hear people complaining about corporations like Exxon getting US federal subsidies, while making record profits?

 

Just so we are clear, who are you blaming here? The people who made the laws that allow the subsidies, or the people who took advantage of the laws?

 

Subsidies are subsidies and ALL should be gotten rid of. If there isn't a property rights issue then the government should butt out.

[Tompo]

Do you consider a corporation that gets federal subsidies, "welfare" too?

 

The fact is, a lot of people will be eligible for a subsidy, if they buy insurance from the exchanges.

 

Definitely yes!

 

 

 

 

Then, why don't I hear people complaining about corporations like Exxon getting US federal subsidies, while making record profits?

 

Just so we are clear, who are you blaming here? The people who made the laws that allow the subsidies, or the people who took advantage of the laws?

 

Subsidies are subsidies and ALL should be gotten rid of. If there isn't a property rights issue then the government should butt out.

 

 

I'm talking about the hypocrisy of people who complain about a person who is eligible for a subsidy to buy health insurance..(maybe for the first time)..but never once complain about an oil company receiving MILLIONS in subsidies.

[jagt48]

I'm talking about the hypocrisy of people who complain about a person who is eligible for a subsidy to buy health insurance..(maybe for the first time)..but never once complain about an oil company receiving MILLIONS in subsidies.

 

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you that we should be complaining and campaigning for the repeal of the subsidies allowed for big business (oil, agriculture, etc.), but this also has to include 100% of subsidies. Subsidies are subsidies and make some "more equal" than others in the eyes of the law. The ACA is a subsidy to the insurance industry, and the last time that I checked it was listed as a pretty big business.

[transplant]

The ACA is a subsidy to the insurance industry

 

That's why my premiums are so much lower now.

 

this also has to include 100% of subsidies

 

Yep, oil, wind farms, electric cars, geothermal - all of em. The reason we don't complain very loudly about things like the oil subsidy is probably because its an old topic, though I think many people would vote for it to go away, if we could at the same time vote for things like the electric car subsidies to go away.

[Tompo]

I'm talking about the hypocrisy of people who complain about a person who is eligible for a subsidy to buy health insurance..(maybe for the first time)..but never once complain about an oil company receiving MILLIONS in subsidies.

 

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you that we should be complaining and campaigning for the repeal of the subsidies allowed for big business (oil, agriculture, etc.), but this also has to include 100% of subsidies. Subsidies are subsidies and make some "more equal" than others in the eyes of the law. The ACA is a subsidy to the insurance industry, and the last time that I checked it was listed as a pretty big business.

 

The ACA is a big wet kiss to private insurance. They were handed 30 million new customers. Without single payer or a public option, the individual mandate--everyone must buy insurance--is the only way to, over time, lower premiums. Same principle with auto insurance...the more people insured, the lower the premium. You pay for the uninsured (health insurance) now--your premium reflects a higher price to cover hospitals who must treat everyone.

[C0untZer0]

I personally love it when the left ends up doing what libertarians advocated in the first place.

 

I remember when all the states (Illinois included) were lining up to get their money from the tobacco companies, and one of the arguments that was repeatedly made was that smoking costs everyone (even non-smokers) a lot of money in increased health care costs.

 

My response was always "if I'm paying for someone else's poor life choices - that's an indicator that our healthcare system is messed up, not a justification for bilking the tobacco companies" But anyway, if I said I wanted to pay for me and let other people pay for themselves - I was a heartless and greedy conservative.

 

Now Obamacare comes along and may accomplish what none of the most ruthless conservatives would ever have been able to accomplish - that is isolating the economic costs of smokers to smokers and not spreading the economic externalities across everyone:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/25/obamacare-policies-slam-smokers-could-backfire/

[transplant]

I'm talking about the hypocrisy of people who complain about a person who is eligible for a subsidy to buy health insurance..(maybe for the first time)..but never once complain about an oil company receiving MILLIONS in subsidies.

 

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you that we should be complaining and campaigning for the repeal of the subsidies allowed for big business (oil, agriculture, etc.), but this also has to include 100% of subsidies. Subsidies are subsidies and make some "more equal" than others in the eyes of the law. The ACA is a subsidy to the insurance industry, and the last time that I checked it was listed as a pretty big business.

 

The ACA is a big wet kiss to private insurance. They were handed 30 million new customers. Without single payer or a public option, the individual mandate--everyone must buy insurance--is the only way to, over time, lower premiums. Same principle with auto insurance...the more people insured, the lower the premium. You pay for the uninsured (health insurance) now--your premium reflects a higher price to cover hospitals who must treat everyone.

 

Are you aware that insurance companies are withdrawing from or reducing their presence in some markets? Fewer insurance companies means less competition which means less bang for your buck and likely higher prices.

 

Comparing health insurance to auto insurance is comparing apples to oranges. For one, there are a lot more choices in auto insurance, and more inter-state competition, whereas with health insurance, the choices were already very limited before ACA. Additionally, with auto insurance, you only pay for coverage for a risk that is not likely to happen - you're not likely to get into an auto accident; you're not likely to get your car broken into or flooded. Where as with health insurance, people expect it to include regular maintenance, as if your auto insurance included oi changes and tire rotations.

 

Adding more people into a risk pool may reduce premiums, because with a larger risk pool, the insurance company doesn't need as large of a % of a buffer against catastrophic loss. However, that argument only makes sense when comparing like risk to like risk. When you want to add people with a healthy lifestyle to offset the cost of people with an unhealthy lifestyle, and charge both of those insureds the same amount for premiums, that's simply a wealth transfer.

[RockerXX]

http://www.foxnews.c...could-backfire/

 

"I can't afford any insurance at that rate," smoker Don Hampson said. "I thought that was what ObamaCare was about, to stop all this."

 

LOL, what fool doesn't understand that insurance companies are in business to make money, they are not going to insure the high risk people for the same or less than a low risk person, it's simply bad business and would put them out of business...

 

It's becoming more and more clear that the ignorant believed the ACA was the utopia of insurance... Honestly did anyone with a functional brain cell believe that forcing insurance companies to insure the high risk and also preventing them from dropping the high risk didn't come with a price tag to cover the inevitable loses?

[C0untZer0]

"I can't afford any insurance at that rate," smoker Don Hampson said. "I thought that was what ObamaCare was about, to stop all this."

 

That's the way the dems sold this whole thing

 

They promise a magical solution to every problem - a chicken in every pot, the proverbial free lunch - something for nothing.

 

​For people who thought that they might have to pay more in order for the heretofore uninsured to have health insurance, the dems assuaged their fears by telling them that the larger pool of insured people would bring costs down for everyone.

 

Let me just say that no failed social program ever gets scrapped. The failure is the pretext to creating yet another social program that promises to fix the failures and problems caused by the previous program. It's an inexorable march forward toward socialism.

 

Four years from now they'll be talking about how a single payer system is what is needed to end the atrocities of poor smokers dying for lack of healthcare.

[jagt48]

I'm talking about the hypocrisy of people who complain about a person who is eligible for a subsidy to buy health insurance..(maybe for the first time)..but never once complain about an oil company receiving MILLIONS in subsidies.

 

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you that we should be complaining and campaigning for the repeal of the subsidies allowed for big business (oil, agriculture, etc.), but this also has to include 100% of subsidies. Subsidies are subsidies and make some "more equal" than others in the eyes of the law. The ACA is a subsidy to the insurance industry, and the last time that I checked it was listed as a pretty big business.

 

The ACA is a big wet kiss to private insurance. They were handed 30 million new customers. Without single payer or a public option, the individual mandate--everyone must buy insurance--is the only way to, over time, lower premiums. Same principle with auto insurance...the more people insured, the lower the premium. You pay for the uninsured (health insurance) now--your premium reflects a higher price to cover hospitals who must treat everyone.

 

So the fact that as soon as major parts of this law went into effect with "30 million new customers" EVERY person I know is having their costs increase for the same or less coverage is somehow actually decreasing cost? You even said that "the more people insured, the lower the cost [sic]." Can you please tell me what logic you used to justify that? I would suggest that competition is the only way to lower rates while not sacrificing care. In fact this can increase the quality of care. See LASIK surgery as just one example.

 

Single payer is too expensive because there aren't enough incentives for the relatively few (compared to the population) doctors to spend more than the minimum amount of time per patient, because any more than that is money out of their pocket. "Oh I'm only going to get paid $30 to see each patient today and it costs $35 per hour to run my practice? I had better see at least two patients this hour, otherwise I will be making less than minimum wage!" The only way to increase care is to either lower the worth of their profession, or charge everyone more in taxes to pay them more.

 

The public option sure sounds noble, but Robert Reich himself said that it would lead to old people dying and young people paying more with less innovation. Here is the actual quote:

 

"You young healthy people- you're going to have to pay more... And by the way... if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive, so we're going to let you die.

 

Also... I'm going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government... to force drug companies... to reduce their costs, but that means less innovation, and that means less new products, and less new drugs on the markets, which means you are probably not going to live that much longer than your parents."

 

If you want to be responsible for your elders' early demise then go ahead. My grandparents wanted to go on living for as long as they did, so we did everything that we could to make that happen. I hope to do the same for my parents, but I may not have a choice if we go with your way.

 

Also comparing health insurance to auto insurance is not the same thing. If I don't buy a car, I don't have to buy auto insurance. If I am alive and in the U.S., I have to buy health insurance regardless of if I want, need, or can afford it. Plus I have relative freedom in the level of coverage that I want and from who I want to buy car insurance from. Note that none of them include regular maintenance, only "catastrophic care" for my car, the kind that was outlawed with the ACA.

 

ETA: Spelling

[Tompo]

Are you aware that insurance companies are withdrawing from or reducing their presence in some markets? Fewer insurance companies means less competition which means less bang for your buck and likely higher prices.

 

Comparing health insurance to auto insurance is comparing apples to oranges. For one, there are a lot more choices in auto insurance, and more inter-state competition, whereas with health insurance, the choices were already very limited before ACA. Additionally, with auto insurance, you only pay for coverage for a risk that is not likely to happen - you're not likely to get into an auto accident; you're not likely to get your car broken into or flooded. Where as with health insurance, people expect it to include regular maintenance, as if your auto insurance included oi changes and tire rotations.

 

Adding more people into a risk pool may reduce premiums, because with a larger risk pool, the insurance company doesn't need as large of a % of a buffer against catastrophic loss. However, that argument only makes sense when comparing like risk to like risk. When you want to add people with a healthy lifestyle to offset the cost of people with an unhealthy lifestyle, and charge both of those insureds the same amount for premiums, that's simply a wealth transfer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If a person buys insurance from the exchanges, there's many, many different choices. Lot's of competition.

[Tompo]

So the fact that as soon as major parts of this law went into effect with "30 million new customers" EVERY person I know is having their costs increase for the same or less coverage is somehow actually decreasing cost? You even said that "the more people insured, the lower the cost [sic]." Can you please tell me what logic you used to justify that? I would suggest that competition is the only way to lower rates while not sacrificing care. In fact this can increase the quality of care. See LASIK surgery as just one example.

 

Single payer is too expensive because there aren't enough incentives for the relatively few (compared to the population) doctors to spend more than the minimum amount of time per patient, because any more than that is money out of their pocket. "Oh I'm only going to get paid $30 to see each patient today and it costs $35 per hour to run my practice? I had better see at least two patients this hour, otherwise I will be making less than minimum wage!" The only way to increase care is to either lower the worth of their profession, or charge everyone more in taxes to pay them more.

 

The public option sure sounds noble, but Robert Reich himself said that it would lead to old people dying and young people paying more with less innovation. Here is the actual quote:

 

"You young healthy people- you're going to have to pay more... And by the way... if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive, so we're going to let you die.

 

Also... I'm going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government... to force drug companies... to reduce their costs, but that means less innovation, and that means less new products, and less new drugs on the markets, which means you are probably not going to live that much longer than your parents."

 

If you want to be responsible for your elders' early demise then go ahead. My grandparents wanted to go on living for as long as they did, so we did everything that we could to make that happen. I hope to do the same for my parents, but I may not have a choice if we go with your way.

 

Also comparing health insurance to auto insurance is not the same thing. If I don't buy a car, I don't have to buy auto insurance. If I am alive and in the U.S., I have to buy health insurance regardless of if I want, need, or can afford it. Plus I have relative freedom in the level of coverage that I want and from who I want to buy car insurance from. Note that none of them include regular maintenance, only "catastrophic care" for my car, the kind that was outlawed with the ACA.

 

ETA: Spelling

 

 

 

 

 

 

You need to "know" more people. There are millions who are receiving health insurance for LESS than before. You can't judge a law based on your own small circle.

There IS competition. There are usually a dozen choices on the exchange. It stands to reason if you insure 100 random people, your cost will be lower than insuring 10 random people.

Single payer is NOT "too expensive". Infact single payer lowers/controls costs the best. Every modern industrialized nation has some form of single payer.

Your quote said nothing about a public option. A public option is nothing more than a govt run insurance policy. Similar to Medicare. Which 98% of all seniors love.

[C0untZer0]

I'm sure seniors "love" medicare. If non-seniors knew how much money was being taken from them I wonder how much they would love it.

[jagt48]

For reference on the public option and Robert Reich, here are a few links for you to look at. Robert Reich himself said that we have to "let people die," " force drug companies," "less innovation," "less new drugs," "probably not going to live longer than your parents." Wow. Sounds like fascism and the State telling me that I can't live as long as I could because they want to stand in the way of the free market. No thanks.

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704107204574473331382043514

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB124580516633344953

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/06/medicare-administrative-costs-are-higher-not-lower-than-for-private-insurance

 

http://reason.com/archives/2013/11/03/the-affordable-care-act-doesnt-go-that-w

 

 

The single payer you refer to, which we currently have a form of known as Medicare, is projected to have rising costs. These future costs are controlled by the ACA by cutting the amount being paid to doctors and hospitals. The rising costs are generally attributed to overuse, because when it's someone else's money, who cares, right? So the "cost controlling" measures you speak of come from reduce care, reduced payments, and increasingly older science. It sounds like you are advocating for the Yugo of the healthcare world. For the record, the government has zero business in healthcare.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/10/medicare-doesnt-think-its-own-cost-controls-will-work/

 

 

Can you point to these "millions who are receiving health insurance for LESS than before?" My company's costs are going up by about 30%, and my wife's the same. Thankfully I don't have to "know more people." Here are plenty whose costs are rising as well.

 

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/11/22/democratic-staffers-wait-why-are-these-obamacare-costs-so-high-n1751538

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-insurance-costs-to-soar-under-obamacare/

 

 

And just for fun, here is a list of stuff that we all have to pay for even though most of us have no use for.

 

http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspsabrecs.htm

[Tompo]

For reference on the public option and Robert Reich, here are a few links for you to look at. Robert Reich himself said that we have to "let people die," " force drug companies," "less innovation," "less new drugs," "probably not going to live longer than your parents." Wow. Sounds like fascism and the State telling me that I can't live as long as I could because they want to stand in the way of the free market. No thanks.

 

http://online.wsj.co...473331382043514

 

http://online.wsj.co...580516633344953

 

http://www.heritage....ivate-insurance

 

http://reason.com/ar...oesnt-go-that-w

 

 

The single payer you refer to, which we currently have a form of known as Medicare, is projected to have rising costs. These future costs are controlled by the ACA by cutting the amount being paid to doctors and hospitals. The rising costs are generally attributed to overuse, because when it's someone else's money, who cares, right? So the "cost controlling" measures you speak of come from reduce care, reduced payments, and increasingly older science. It sounds like you are advocating for the Yugo of the healthcare world. For the record, the government has zero business in healthcare.

 

http://www.washingto...rols-will-work/

 

 

Can you point to these "millions who are receiving health insurance for LESS than before?" My company's costs are going up by about 30%, and my wife's the same. Thankfully I don't have to "know more people." Here are plenty whose costs are rising as well.

 

http://townhall.com/...o-high-n1751538

 

http://www.cbsnews.c...nder-obamacare/

 

 

And just for fun, here is a list of stuff that we all have to pay for even though most of us have no use for.

 

http://www.usprevent.../uspsabrecs.htm

 

 

Your WSj links are editorial/opinions. Not facts/news. Plus, it's dated 2009, from a speech he gave in 2007. Long before the ACA.

 

It's odd you link the Heritage foundation, since the ACA is a Heritage foundation idea. They first promoted this plan years ago. Romney implemented it in MA. I don't read anything from Townhall.

Medicare is not 'single payer". A true 'single payer' system would be similar to the VA. Every modern industrialized country has a form of single payer--except us. And nearly all these country's have a longer life span than us, less obesity than us and lower infant death than us. And the best part....NONE of these country's are throwing out their single payer system and implementing a private insurance plan like WE have. Ever wonder why Canadians love their health care plan?

If you believe the govt has no place in healthcare, that's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. ALL healthcare costs have and will go up.

But, the CBO says costs go up less quickly and less overall, with the ACA. The CBO says the ACA will actually SAVE us money.

If your costs are going up, (and they went up every other year too) blame your company's insurance plan, not the ACA.

 

There's plenty of people who have gotten insurance at a lower cost with the ACA. You just need to have a wider circle of sources. The people in kentucky love it, for example. Do a google search, you'll find plenty.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-obamacare-success-20131125,0,1801769.story#axzz2lsPwsCFy

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/23/the-obamacare-success-stories.html

 

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/11/27/how-print-and-broadcast-media-are-hiding-obamac/197079

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/08/obamacare-states_n_4234441.html

[dorvinion]

Fuzzy math does not a reduction in spending make.

 

CBO score is based on what the law in front of them says will happen.

 

What the law says will happen, and what actually happens are two entirely different things.

 

CBO assumes most states will run their own exchanges. Reality only a few have chosen to.

CBO assumes the law will be applied evenly, reality is that the administration has granted many exceptions to specific entities(without authorization of the law I might add)

CBO assumes the mandates start according to the schedule on the law, reality is those too are being waived (again without authorization of the law)

CBO assumes a particular number of people will sign up for the high risk pools, reality is that far fewer people than expected signed up and yet even with fewer people they blew through what was appropriated much faster than expected.

 

If it costs an individual 2,000 more a year to comply with Obama Care insurance mandate even after getting other people's money to help pay for it, that's not factored into the CBO cost.

 

 

Bottom line, in seven years this thing is going to cost significantly more than CBO says it would. The history of past US government meddling in health care supports this conclusion all to well.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

 

[WtJen]

Wait a minute. Didn't Obama say that the average health care cost for a family with go DOWN $2500/year? Surely he didn't say that just to get ObamaCare passed.

[jagt48]

Nice try on shifting the blame to the insurance company. I wonder what made them make these changes in the first place... They changed because of government regulations that required them to offer more services that a lot of people don't need, just like I referenced above.

 

The whole system is broken. I assume that you just want more health care for more people for less money, so why are we throwing more money and more regulation at a broken system? Get the government out of it. All that they have done is strengthen the insurance industry and the size of the government. The FDA and "big pharma" have done their best to keep cheaper forms of treatment under wraps, because you can't slap a patent on those and make a few bucks on it. If you were in their position would you be working towards a cure, or merely towards something that will keep people on your products for as long as possible? Smells like an oppressive government working with a monopoly to keep both strong to me. I guess you have to stay relevant to keep the money coming in both the private AND public sectors.

 

Want to know of a few reasons costs are rising besides suppressing cheaper alternatives? Unnecessary testing for routine procedures "just in case," so the doctor can do his best to not be sued (he has to pay insurance for this, and my father in law had to retire because his was over $100k/yr and he had been sued zero times in his 40+ year career), decreased competition from not being able to sell across state lines, paying for things that should be done out-of-pocket, not allowing individuals to get the same tax incentives businesses get for providing health insurance, and making it mandatory for the individual to buy insurance. You even said yourself that it is a "big wet kiss" to the insurance industry. Insurance works by measuring against risk. It is not a social welfare program. If you want to survive as a health care provider, you need to make it cost effective to do so. Again, see LASIK surgery, or this surgery center from Oklahoma whose prices were typically 20% of what a hospital charges. This has caused hospitals in the area to lower their prices. Who knew that getting the .gov out of the way would cause prices to fall!

 

http://kfor.com/2013/07/08/okc-hospital-posting-surgery-prices-online/

 

 

Some of these costs certainly are just for the administration of these rules and regulations, so why put more in? You then have to pay even more people to administer them, driving costs upwards and putting more people between the patient and doctor.

 

 

Can you show me where "Canadians love their healthcare?" This article seems to suggest otherwise, plus it is proving to be unsustainable and the wait times are about twice what they are in the U.S. Even if they do love it, it doesn't mean they will get to keep it (where have I heard that before...?).

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/01/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-canadian-health-care-in-one-post/

 

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/24/report-canadian-health-care-spending-unsustainable/

[C0untZer0]

Here are the facts:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckl3WShv4xU

[Tompo]

Nice try on shifting the blame to the insurance company. I wonder what made them make these changes in the first place... They changed because of government regulations that required them to offer more services that a lot of people don't need, just like I referenced above.

 

The whole system is broken. I assume that you just want more health care for more people for less money, so why are we throwing more money and more regulation at a broken system? Get the government out of it. All that they have done is strengthen the insurance industry and the size of the government. The FDA and "big pharma" have done their best to keep cheaper forms of treatment under wraps, because you can't slap a patent on those and make a few bucks on it. If you were in their position would you be working towards a cure, or merely towards something that will keep people on your products for as long as possible? Smells like an oppressive government working with a monopoly to keep both strong to me. I guess you have to stay relevant to keep the money coming in both the private AND public sectors.

 

Want to know of a few reasons costs are rising besides suppressing cheaper alternatives? Unnecessary testing for routine procedures "just in case," so the doctor can do his best to not be sued (he has to pay insurance for this, and my father in law had to retire because his was over $100k/yr and he had been sued zero times in his 40+ year career), decreased competition from not being able to sell across state lines, paying for things that should be done out-of-pocket, not allowing individuals to get the same tax incentives businesses get for providing health insurance, and making it mandatory for the individual to buy insurance. You even said yourself that it is a "big wet kiss" to the insurance industry. Insurance works by measuring against risk. It is not a social welfare program. If you want to survive as a health care provider, you need to make it cost effective to do so. Again, see LASIK surgery, or this surgery center from Oklahoma whose prices were typically 20% of what a hospital charges. This has caused hospitals in the area to lower their prices. Who knew that getting the .gov out of the way would cause prices to fall!

 

http://kfor.com/2013...-prices-online/

 

 

Some of these costs certainly are just for the administration of these rules and regulations, so why put more in? You then have to pay even more people to administer them, driving costs upwards and putting more people between the patient and doctor.

 

 

Can you show me where "Canadians love their healthcare?" This article seems to suggest otherwise, plus it is proving to be unsustainable and the wait times are about twice what they are in the U.S. Even if they do love it, it doesn't mean they will get to keep it (where have I heard that before...?).

 

http://www.washingto...re-in-one-post/

 

http://dailycaller.c...-unsustainable/

 

 

The "blame" IS on the insurance company. You act like rates never went up before. Private insurance is a FOR PROFIT business. The ONLY way private insurance makes money is to deny claims and raise rates. That's been going on for DECADES.

The ACA required industry standards. Too many people in the past who THOUGHT they had insurance were shocked when they got sick their "insurance" was crap.....and didn't cover their bills. The NUMBER ONE reason of personal bankruptcy is medical bills. Millions have filed for bankruptcy because their crappy insurance canceled them when they got sick or their crappy insurance didn't cover their illness. Now, that won't happen.

 

Sure, it's a "big wet kiss" to the insurance companies.....why? Because single payer was shot down. Why do you think NONE of the other modern industrialized nations have our form of health insurance? because it doesn't work. Can you name ONE country that has single payer that is going away from single payer and implementing our form of private insurance??

 

Sure, doctors routinely run seemingly unnecessary tests. and, yes it's to CYA. But it's also because the patients insurance company will usually pay for it. It's a money-making 'scam" for both.

 

Again, you need to see/talk to more people. Canadians overwhelmingly like their health plan.

 

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/august/new_poll_shows_canad.php

[Lou]

Wait a minute. Didn't Obama say that the average health care cost for a family with go DOWN $2500/year? Surely he didn't say that just to get ObamaCare passed.

 

Fixed it for you.

[WtJen]

I suspect that Tompo might live in an alternate universe where ObamaCare actually works. It costs nothing, you never lose coverage, and everyone is happy with their medical care. I further postulate, he doesn't know he lives in that alternate universe and wonders why millions of people are upset about what is happening to healthcare and what is about to happen to it. . He communicates with us by way of a Einstein-Rosenberg bridge(My kudos to you if you know what that is) and is blissfully unaware of the actuality of the universe that we live in. Or he just likes Obama and I'm making all the rest of this up.

[Tompo]

I suspect that Tompo might live in an alternate universe where ObamaCare actually works. It costs nothing, you never lose coverage, and everyone is happy with their medical care. I further postulate, he doesn't know he lives in that alternate universe and wonders why millions of people are upset about what is happening to healthcare and what is about to happen to it. . He communicates with us by way of a Einstein-Rosenberg bridge(My kudos to you if you know what that is) and is blissfully unaware of the actuality of the universe that we live in. Or he just likes Obama and I'm making all the rest of this up.

 

 

Wow, someone's a fan of Stephen Hawking....

 

The people who REALLY members of that wormhole universe are the people who believe private insurance for health care works. Why do you think there was a need for 'reform' in the first place?

Where was your concern for the millions of Americans who had their insurance canceled BEFORE the ACA? back then, when that happened, they couldn't buy ANY insurance. Now, they can. The people who got cancellation letters did so because they had crappy polices...that didn't meet standards. But NOW they can still buy insurance. Or, where was the concern for those people who had crappy insurance (they THOUGHT they had real insurance) and when they got sick, their "insurance" didn't cover their bills--and they had to file bankruptcy.

[WtJen]

Those policies met THEIR standards. They did not meet your standards or by extension, Obama's standards. Freedom to choose, how does it work? LOL

[Lou]

Ummm. Do I sense this thread will become locked if we cannot disagree respectfully?

 

Happy Thankgiving everyone.

[jagt48]

I'll second that for now, Lou. Thanks.

 

Tompo, you seem like a passionate and intelligent person and I feel like we should agree to disagree. If you'd like to continue this tomorrow or something that is fine, but I have some Thanksgiving food to get at, and hope you have the same. Happy Thanksgiving to you and everyone else!

[really?_ILivehere]

Canadians overwhelmingly like their health plan.

 

I think you might want to dig a little deeper into Canadian healthcare, why do Canucks come to the US for "procedures" using their own money? Further you might want to look into the reason why folks in the UK have such horrible teeth.

 

Socialism is not the answer. Government is the problem, not the solution.