Health Care for Everyone

[Joey D]

The price of healthcare has not doubled in the last few years, but insurance premiums have(anecdotal, not statistical).

It's called greed, followed closely by the generation in their 50's and up expecting everything to be handed to them because they've "worked hard" their entire life. Most of the country's problems can be blamed on that generation and it makes me laugh when they try to pawn it off to younger people who are taking the brunt of the older population bad decisions. It's also rather funny that many of the people who opposes Obama's plan are the same ones on Medicare or Medicade.

I honestly can't tell if this is some game politicians are playing to make Obama look bad right before the election or they truly don't like the healthcare plan. There are a lot of good things with the healthcare reform, but like anything there are some bad things as well. I agree Obama has done a lot of stupid things throughout his presidency, but the healthcare reform isn't anywhere near the worse thing.

Allowing young people to stay on their parents insurance till they are 26 is one of those good things especially since it's harder for young people now to find a job that offers halfway decent coverage, if at all. If you have a few years to get settled somewhere without adding a $250 health insurance premium per month, it'll help you out. Or for those of us who lost their jobs, like myself, and can't seem to get going it really helps to have a parent that allows you to be one their insurance. Sure my mom is paying more for her insurance through work, but that's understandable.

Meaningful use is another really good thing since it cuts down on unneeded tests, drugs or procedures. It also cuts back on doctors doing quick money grabs for no reason at all, which saves money.

Reimbursement restrictions are good to since Medicare will not reimburse a hospital if a patient comes back with the same condition in a given amount of time. They won't reimburse for a preventable hospital infection or illness (bladder infection from a cath or pneumonia). This puts emphasis on medical education and working with the patient to promote a healthier lifestyle and stay well.

The bit about requiring insurance has a good and bad side. If you don't have insurance there is a good chance the government is going to be picking up the tab in someway either though Medicare/Medicade or tax reimbursements for charity care. However, requiring people to have insurance is just going to turn the whole insurance industry into something like a cartel. The insurance companies already do this with car insurance.

 

[Jubby]

It's called greed, followed closely by the generation in their 50's and up expecting everything to be handed to them because they've "worked hard" their entire life.

I agree with that in part. When I hear that a 60, 70, or even 80-something (and yes, I've talked to an 80+ saying this) is complaining that their Social Security check doesn't pay their entire $800 mortgage payment, along with all of their bills, and they can't afford their medication... all I hear is, "blah, blah, I shouldn't have picked up a mortgage irresponsibly, blah, blah, I made a mistake that you'll pay for."

The bit about requiring insurance has a good and bad side. If you don't have insurance there is a good chance the government is going to be picking up the tab in someway either though Medicare/Medicade or tax reimbursements for charity care. However, requiring people to have insurance is just going to turn the whole insurance industry into something like a cartel. The insurance companies already do this with car insurance.

To stop some of the issues with healthcare, the first thing is to eliminate moronic ER visits. This will need to be a prerequisite for successful insurance and payment of healthcare. I know it may seem important to any parent, but taking your four-year old to the ER because they have a 100*F fever and it's the flu, is a stupid idea. I hear of so many irrational visits to the ER because "they don't know what's going on" but there are no "red flag" signs that they should be concerned. I had someone tell me that they couldn't wait to see their doctor that afternoon (it was early morning), so they went to the ER. I bet the party they went to the night before and after, didn't help their sickness in the slightest. /Rant. I know some visits are needed... but not enough knowledge and common sense is used these days.

 

[Joey D]

To stop some of the issues with healthcare, the first thing is to eliminate moronic ER visits. This will need to be a prerequisite for successful insurance and payment of healthcare. I know it may seem important to any parent, but taking your four-year old to the ER because they have a 100*F fever and it's the flu, is a stupid idea. I hear of so many irrational visits to the ER because "they don't know what's going on" but there are no "red flag" signs that they should be concerned. I had someone tell me that they couldn't wait to see their doctor that afternoon (it was early morning), so they went to the ER. I bet the party they went to the night before and after, didn't help their sickness in the slightest. /Rant. I know some visits are needed... but not enough knowledge and common sense is used these days.

This is something hospitals in the Detroit Metro area area trying to fix. And I agree, I've worked in the ER and some of the cases that come in there reassures that I haven't even begun to see everything. I remember one case of a lady coming in because she broke a nail, I was floored by the stupidity, but we couldn't turn anyone away.

The hospital that I'm contracted through to work at as-needed is doing a huge push to encourage patient with non life-threatening to go to urgent cares instead of the ER. I'm actually going to be starting here in a few weeks on a huge project that should move this along and make the turn around at the urgent cares quicker so that they are even more attractive to go to.

I know when I'm having an asthma attack I go to the urgent care since there is no reason for me to go to the ER and take up a room when there are sicker people than I that need it.

 

[Omnis]

Ding dong, the mandate's dead!

 

[arora]

I've not kept up on the high court, you're saying the constitution is being upheld? I hope there is a crushing blow to Obama's socialist legacy.

 

[Joey D]

And I hope the Supreme Court isn't stupid enough to repeal the entire thing. Yes there are bad parts, but crushing the whole thing would not be beneficial.

Also I am not really keen about being unhealthy with no real job and losing my health insurance.

 

[Tesla]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-...nal-arguments-on-obama-healthcare-law/3920936

So this means...?

 

[arora]

Ah, thanks for link. It means good news to me, they are not going to give Obama cart blaunch(spelling), seems to me it barely made it out of congress alive the first time, now we wait some more I guess.

Good.

 

[Danoff]

And I hope the Supreme Court isn't stupid enough to repeal the entire thing.

It's a 2500 page law, and relying on the supreme court to comb through it and find all of the references to the unconstitutional parts and perform surgery on them is asking them to create new legislation, legislation that congress would not necessarily have approved - and that's not the supreme court's job.

In some cases, congress creates instructions when they pass a law for what to do if some part of the law is declared unconstitutional (one might have thought that such a thing would be prudent in this case). However, because of the fact that this 2500 page law was rushed through at the last second without congress having even had the chance to read it, it also wasn't given due diligence in preparation for surviving the supreme court.

This is the level of thought that was put into this sweeping, massive, world-changing law. Anyone who voted for this law (without reading it) should immediately be removed from congress. They also should be heavily admonished for trying to trample the constitution. The only right outcome in this case is for the supreme court to find the law unconstitutional and eliminate it in its entirety. Let's hope that's what happens.

 

[arora]

^ Agreed
Kinda what I was getting at way back when.....

I'm looking forward to thise intire farce of a bill either being shot down in the courts or repealed through elections 👍

Are there any groups pressuring congress on this atm? The 'bad apples' won't be thrown out, but maybe exposed and voted out.

 

[Joey D]

It's a 2500 page law, and relying on the supreme court to comb through it and find all of the references to the unconstitutional parts and perform surgery on them is asking them to create new legislation, legislation that congress would not necessarily have approved - and that's not the supreme court's job.

In some cases, congress creates instructions when they pass a law for what to do if some part of the law is declared unconstitutional (one might have thought that such a thing would be prudent in this case). However, because of the fact that this 2500 page law was rushed through at the last second without congress having even had the chance to read it, it also wasn't given due diligence in preparation for surviving the supreme court.

This is the level of thought that was put into this sweeping, massive, world-changing law. Anyone who voted for this law (without reading it) should immediately be removed from congress. They also should be heavily admonished for trying to trample the constitution. The only right outcome in this case is for the supreme court to find the law unconstitutional and eliminate it in its entirety. Let's hope that's what happens.

Even then there are big parts that do help a lot of people and are very beneficial with meaningful use being one of the biggest, followed closely by allowed people to be on their parents insurance (which they pay for) until they are 26. If you scrap the whole meaningful use section of the reform, it's letting medical institutions go back to doing unnecessary tests and procedure in an attempt to get more money. And if you scrap the reform that allows young people to be on their parent's insurance till they're 26, you'll just end up with a lot of people in their mid-20's without a job that offers no insurance benefits or unemployed to be left with no healthcare options. It's not like it's even remotely affordable, especially if you have student loans, rent, and everything else associated with starting out life.

The requirement to have insurance is something that needs to be looked over and it's something I don't think works as it just gives the already greedy insurance companies more reason to screw people over.

If they do scrap the entire reform the government still needs to go back and reform healthcare in this country. Healthcare is quickly becoming way to expensive in the US, even for the average person and it's only going to get worse as baby boomers get older and think they deserve something at the expense of the younger generation. Letting healthcare go back to the way it was will end up being a disaster.\

I also can't even remotely understand what mindset people must be in to think that healthcare reform is bad. But then again these people probably has comfortable jobs, with benefits and good pay....so you know screw that lazy ass, unemployed bums with no sense of motivation.

 

[Danoff]

Even then there are big parts that do help a lot of people and are very beneficial with meaningful use being one of the biggest, followed closely by allowed people to be on their parents insurance (which they pay for) until they are 26. If you scrap the whole meaningful use section of the reform, it's letting medical institutions go back to doing unnecessary tests and procedure in an attempt to get more money. And if you scrap the reform that allows young people to be on their parent's insurance till they're 26, you'll just end up with a lot of people in their mid-20's without a job that offers no insurance benefits or unemployed to be left with no healthcare options. It's not like it's even remotely affordable, especially if you have student loans, rent, and everything else associated with starting out life.

None of that should play any kind of role in the supreme court's decision. Their job is not to make legislation to deal with any of these issues. Their job is determine whether congress overstepped their bounds. Interpreting the constitution based on whether people in their mid-20's without a job will be able to afford insurance is asking for big trouble. Legislation from the bench is essentially what you're asking for, and it's just not something that we give that branch of government. If you want to blame someone blame congress for passing the law in a form that might not survive. If you really want to blame someone blame Obama for drafting a law (something he's not supposed to do) and ramming it through congress without any appreciation for the constitution.

Also, you're definitely taking a one-sided view of the effects of some of this legislation. You're looking at the requirement that parents be able to keep their kids on their insurance until 26 as only a good thing, when in fact it requires parents to subsidize their kids' health insurance at higher rates. Even if you give your parents a kickback, effectively offsetting their cost, their employer doesn't get that kickback form you and could drop employee coverage or go to a cheaper, worse health insurance plan to compensate for rising costs. I'm not saying that it's definitely a bad thing for kids to remain on their parents' plan, I'm saying that it's not as simple as your post seems to make it out to be.

If they do scrap the entire reform the government still needs to go back and reform healthcare in this country. Healthcare is quickly becoming way to expensive in the US, even for the average person and it's only going to get worse as baby boomers get older and think they deserve something at the expense of the younger generation. Letting healthcare go back to the way it was will end up being a disaster.

There's a reason that healthcare is quickly become more expensive. The reason is because more than ever the consumer is getting removed from the cost - and that's a recipe for rising costs. None of what is being proposed is going to do anything but make that situation worse.

I also can't even remotely understand what mindset people must be in to think that healthcare reform is bad.

I'm not sure who that's aimed at, but I can assure you that I think our healthcare system is in shambles and have experienced first-hand many of the reasons that it is in desperate need of reform. That's not to say that it can't be made worse than it is, and Obamacare definitely pushes us further in a bad direction.

But then again these people probably has comfortable jobs, with benefits and good pay....so you know screw that lazy ass, unemployed bums with no sense of motivation.

I have no idea what those people are thinking because I'm not one of them. The only people I can imagine thinking that the current health care system is good are people who are getting their pockets lined by it. Lobbyists, bureaucrats, perhaps some doctors, perhaps some pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies... but other doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and insurance companies are undoubtedly getting screwed by it too.

 

[Keef]

And I hope the Supreme Court isn't stupid enough to repeal the entire thing. Yes there are bad parts, but crushing the whole thing would not be beneficial.

I have to assume they would shoot down the entire thing because it's pointless without the individual mandate.

 

[Dapper]

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness starts with health care.

 

[Keef]

Healthcare paid for by the birthing parents, or the family, or donated to by friends, churches, charities, and whoever else might want to donate to the parents and child.

Not by involuntary forcing people to contribute to a cause they may not want to contribute to.

 

[Dapper]

Healthcare...

A good start. We agree healthcare is a necessary part of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in the 21st century, and beyond.

...paid for by the birthing parents, or the family, or donated to by friends, churches, charities, and whoever else might want to donate to the parents and child.

Not by involuntary forcing people to contribute to a cause they may not want to contribute to.

This is where you start making stuff up. Where is that in constitution?

 

[Keef]

This is where you start making stuff up. Where is that in constitution?

Forcing person A against their will to provide a service to another is a fundamental violation of person A's liberty and property.

Besides that, it is in the Constitution that the Federal government does not have the power to force the public to purchase goods or services. We just discussed that in a different thread. How you've already forgotten is beyond me.

 

[Dapper]

Forcing person A against their will to provide a service to another is a fundamental violation of person A's liberty and property.

Besides you didn't answer my question, property is taxable.

 

[Keef]

I didn't answer it because I know you already know the answer and I think you're just being obtuse.

 

[Keef]

Missouri state House of Representatives votes to nullify Obamacare.

The general assembly declares that (PPACA) … exceeds the power granted to Congress under the United States Constitution and therefore is not law, but is altogether void and of no force.

...

Any official, agent, or employee of the United States government who undertakes any act within the borders of this state that enforces or attempts to enforce any aspect of the (PPACA) is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

The vote took place on April 19, a day that should be remembered as a great day in Missouri history.

As for "nullification", it is an implied power by the 10th Amendment wherein no power explicitly given to the Federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, is reserved to the States and People. Nullification is not a power given to the Feds, nor is it prohibited to the States, therefore it is an implied power of the States and People.

 

[Slash]

Personally, I don't beleive that you should be firced into buying something that you either

A. Can't afford
B. Refuse to have coverage

That's like forcing somone to go out and buy McDonalds because the government said you had to. It's just silly.

 

[Keef]

That's like forcing somone to go out and buy McDonalds because the government said you had to. It's just silly.

If Obamacare isn't struck down the individual mandate portion will set a precedent which will allow the government to force you to buy McDonalds.

You wouldn't believe how many people can't wrap their heads around that.

 

[Slash]

You wouldn't believe how many people can't wrap their heads around that.

It's rediculous.

 

[Swift]

If Obamacare isn't struck down the individual mandate portion will set a precedent which will allow the government to force you to buy McDonalds.

You wouldn't believe how many people can't wrap their heads around that.

Scary thought huh?

 

[Sam48]

If Obamacare isn't struck down the individual mandate portion will set a precedent which will allow the government to force you to buy McDonalds.

Even though it's just an example, I would imagine McDonalds is the last place the government would want you to eat at if they're paying for your health insurance. In fact, if they could force you to buy a good or service, then they may also have the ability to take away a good or service.

 

[Swift]

Even though it's just an example, I would imagine McDonalds is the last place the government would want you to eat at if they're paying for your health insurance. In fact, if they could force you to buy a good or service, then they may also have the ability to take away a good or service.

I think that is a good point and this illustrates how very very dangerous it is to have the government mandating that everyone has to buy something.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

I personally support nationalised healthcare. I know I'm only 16, but I am in support of high taxes and big government. The whole point of the government is to help the people, IMHO. Also, the healthcare industry can charge people ridiculous amounts of money for a policy, then not pay for things. Although the government is very bureaucratic, I think it would be better than the large corporations at providing good healthcare. *leaves as people quote his post and vehemently disagree*

 

[Swift]

I personally support nationalised healthcare. I know I'm only 16, but I am in support of high taxes and big government. The whole point of the government is to help the people, IMHO. Also, the healthcare industry can charge people ridiculous amounts of money for a policy, then not pay for things. Although the government is very bureaucratic, I think it would be better than the large corporations at providing good healthcare. *leaves as people quote his post and vehemently disagree*

Why do you believe the government would do a better job? Medicare is already the largest denier of claims in the country. That's just one point.

Why would the government be better then an employer?

 

[Ardius]

Why would the government be better then an employer?

Because ideally, they would have to provide a service that meets a set standard - in theory a set standard voted for by the public, not to mention any decisions would be taken (again, ideally) in the best interests for keeping the organisation running and providing a service.

Whereas an private company has no duty to the public, it is driven by profit. If a part or all of its services are not profitable it can choose to completely shut down those services - something that perhaps government-run services cannot do (or rather, finds more difficult to do).

There are pros and cons for both sides, a private company has the prospect of competition that drives services to improve and beat each other on quality whereas a government organisation does not need to improve, only match the public's lowest expectations.

 

[Danoff]

*leaves as people quote his post and vehemently disagree*

This is always a good approach to important topics of public policy. Plugging your ears prevents new information from challenging your predispositions.

There are pros and cons for both sides, a private company has the prospect of competition that drives services to improve and beat each other on quality whereas a government organisation does not need to improve, only match the public's lowest expectations.

Competition always wins. Right now the system is horribly broken, and is in desperate need of reform. It just so happens that the problem is that the public is too insulated from health care costs rather than the other way around.

Do you know how much your doctor costs? Did you shop around? You'd be amazed if you ever have to pay for something out of pocket. The lab my insurance used to do bloodwork wanted to charge me $1200 for two tests. I shopped around and got it for $400... and I sacrificed nothing in terms of quality.

My wife had a procedure that costs approximately $800 billed to her insurance for $12,000. That's right... $12,000. We explained this to another doctor who's jaw hit the floor. Even though we paid none of the difference we protested, we called the insurance company, the doctor, everyone. Nobody cared. Nothing was done about the bill. We were told "why do you care? you're not paying for it".

This is what is happening currently in the US healthcare system, and it is the result of lack of consumer shopping (because why would you shop when you don't pay directly). Government run healthcare will do nothing to address this.