Unaffordable Care Act

[Danielle Emmalee]

When are people going to realize that if you keep voting for the same 2 parties over and over and over and over and over again nothing is going to change.  Its just mental.  You don't have to vote for the lesser of two evils.  Well you do, but only because everyone else thinks exactly the same thing.  It's just bizarre.  How bad do things have to get before something really changes?

[Heather]

I can still hear Nancy Pelosi with that bizarro world look on her face saying, "Just sign it and we'll see what it says later!" I can't write what I'd really like to say about that kind of moronic mentality lest I bring down a host of alphabet agencies on myself and Susan's...MEH!

I feel for you Shantel if I had Nancy Pelosi's annoying voice inside my head I'd probably go insane. 

[Jamie D]

Cindy,

[SNIP]

Hugs
Donna

P.S. To those who are against the idea of healthy young people paying into a common pot that insures coverage for all when it is required, the basic principle behind any sort of insurance system, are you against insurance in general?   

The principle behind insurance is shared risk of a payout among those who participate by paying premiums into the pool.  Young people have a relatively low risk of health problems, relative to older people.  They should be able to exercise their right to stay out of the insurance pool, and assume any risk on their own.

It turns out the so-called "Affordable Care Act," is neither affordable, nor will it provide quality care (especially if doctors refuse to provide service).

[Cindy]

I certainly don't wish to comment on this specific act as it is way outside my jurisdiction.

Here the law came in that young people could opt out -BUT - they then would have to pay higher premiums when they joined.

But we also have a comprehensive private insurance market that many people use, but you still have to pay a % of income for the public system.

I'm more interested on a theoretical discussion of what would work world wide, rather than the possibly emotive present discussion.

[Yukari-sensei]

Well, that safety net exists.  There is not a person in the United States that can be legally turned away from a public hospital.

The question in this case is whether another gigantic bureaucracy, and drain on a already bankrupt polity, is the essence of of good government, or whether the government has finally become destructive and despotic.

Each and every one of us already owes the creditors of the United States over $50,000.  I would like it if the Federal government would no longer borrows money in my name.

Where do you get the idea that no one can be turned away from a public hospital?! You are invoking the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1985. It does not say a patient cannot be turned away regardless of ability to pay.

No one can be denied treatment in cases of where life is threatened; however, politicians working contrary to public interest can be quite adept at redefining what is considered "life threatening".

Don't believe me, go visit the ER in an economically disadvantaged area. Watch someone die with your own eyes of hyperkalemia brought on by Diabetic Renal Failure... You might change your mind on Universal Health Care.

The ACA is not perfect; but, I'll take it as a step in the correct direction. Eventually single-payer healthcare will be instituted in the US.

[Jamie D]

That's right, people can not be denied emergency care based on the ability to pay.  Beyond the federal mandate, individual states may provide various levels of indigent care.

http://dls.state.va.us/GROUPS/COPN/meetings/111406/IndigentCare.pdf

COPN = Certification of Public Need

One of the biggest problems with socialized medicine is that it give individuals little impetus to take care of themselves.  Diabetic renal failure is entirely preventable by lifestyle changes, especially for those with Type II (pre-)diabetes.  A lot of this is about individual responsibility versus the nanny state.

The context of my statement, of course, was in reply to whether a social safety net existed.  It does.

[Shantel]

All blatant lies perpetrated through outright deceit! There it is, what additional evidence does anyone need?

[Yukari-sensei]

That's right, people can not be denied emergency care based on the ability to pay.  Beyond the federal mandate, individual states may provide various levels of indigent care.

http://dls.state.va.us/GROUPS/COPN/meetings/111406/IndigentCare.pdf

COPN = Certification of Public Need

One of the biggest problems with socialized medicine is that it give individuals little impetus to take care of themselves.  Diabetic renal failure is entirely preventable by lifestyle changes, especially for those with Type II (pre-)diabetes.  A lot of this is about individual responsibility versus the nanny state.

The context of my statement, of course, was in reply to whether a social safety net existed.  It does.

So the millions of people who are forced to subsist on highly processed food, or the segment of the population that is forced to combine multiple carbohydrates to construct a complete protein are completely at fault for their Dx?! Or does genetics have no factor in the incidence of DM in the population...?

Nevermind that there are millions of people forced into unhealthy lifestyles because they are paid $7.25/hr. They are free to starve but not free to organize. If you are all about freedom, then every right-to-work-for-less-money law should be struck down so every worker would be free to form or join a union.

That's not a safety net, that is a joke... and a bad one at the expense of the working poor at that!

[Antonia J]

I think Soylent Green is the answer to nutrition.

[Shantel]

I think Soylent Green is the answer to nutrition.

+1 

[Tatyana]

Here's what else I fear.  The government taking premiums out of our pay checks when they figure out that people are just paying the tax or not paying the tax and going without insurance.

[SarahM777]

Here's what else I fear.  The government taking premiums out of our pay checks when they figure out that people are just paying the tax or not paying the tax and going without insurance.

UMM that is why they attached it the IRS. Next year if you don't have insurance the fine is about $95 or a percentage up to $285 which is greater. The next year the fine is greater and each year the fine will go up till it reaches $685 plus a percentage of income.

[SarahM777]

And there is a catch on that fine,it does NOT go towards your health care.

[Tatyana]

UMM that is why they attached it the IRS. Next year if you don't have insurance the fine is about $95 or a percentage up to $285 which is greater. The next year the fine is greater and each year the fine will go up till it reaches $685 plus a percentage of income.

Currently the fine has no teeth i,e, there is no criminal penalty so a lot of people will not even pay the fine.  So the government will either have throw people in jail, not very likely, or take it out of our pay.  I hope I'm wrong though.

[Donna Elvira]

The principle behind insurance is shared risk of a payout among those who participate by paying premiums into the pool.  Young people have a relatively low risk of health problems, relative to older people.  They should be able to exercise their right to stay out of the insurance pool, and assume any risk on their own.

There is a major difference between health insurance and insurance against other forms of risk, just about everyone will need health care at some point in their lives. As it happens, about 80% of expenditure on health care occurs during the last 20 years of most poeple's lives.
If we took your reasoning to it's logical conclusion, the only people who would have a real incentive to pay for health insurance are those who are hitting their  sixties or seventies but that wouldn't really work either, would it? Of course, pushing the utilitarian logic to the bitter end, we could also just let old people die as soon as their health starts to become an issue, no? 
Also, just making another anology, do you think drivers should be allowed to have or not have car insurance based on their own evaluation of their needs?

Hugs
Donna

P.S. Last little detail, there is absolutely no evidence to support your idea that people are less careful about their life style choices and their impact on health in countries with universal health care than in the US. On the contrary as it happens, as you are probably aware, from enfant mortality rates to diabetes and heart disease (health issues closely related to obesity)  , the US scores far worse than any comparable country in spite of a much higher proportion of national wealth being devoted to health expenditure. It does however beg questions on who really benefits from the existing system, the people in general or the health care "industry" ??

[Jamie D]

So the millions of people who are forced to subsist on highly processed food, or the segment of the population that is forced to combine multiple carbohydrates to construct a complete protein are completely at fault for their Dx?! Or does genetics have no factor in the incidence of DM in the population...?

Nevermind that there are millions of people forced into unhealthy lifestyles because they are paid $7.25/hr. They are free to starve but not free to organize. If you are all about freedom, then every right-to-work-for-less-money law should be struck down so every worker would be free to form or join a union.

That's not a safety net, that is a joke... and a bad one at the expense of the working poor at that!

I ask myself, what did my ancestors do?  They worked to change their circumstances.  No free person is "forced" into an unhealthy lifestyle, or "forced" to eat unhealthy food.  Eating healthy is less expensive than eating unhealthy.  Healthful recreation is free.

The difference, it seems, is some have the ability to exercise their free will and make positive changes.  Sometimes those changes are hard.  Sometimes they are inconvenient.  But if you want to change your circumstances in life, I can't think of a better place to do it.

[Jamie D]

There is a major difference between health insurance and insurance against other forms of risk, just about everyone will need health care at some point in their lives. As it happens, about 80% of expenditure on health care occurs during the last 20 years of most poeple's lives.
If we took your reasoning to it's logical conclusion, the only people who would have a real incentive to pay for health insurance are those who are hitting their  sixties or seventies but that wouldn't really work either, would it? Of course, pushing the utilitarian logic to the bitter end, we could also just let old people die as soon as their health starts to become an issue, no? 
Also, just making another anology, do you think drivers should be allowed to have or not have car insurance based on their own evaluation of their needs?

Hugs
Donna

P.S. Last little detail, there is absolutely no evidence to support your idea that people are less careful about their life style choices and their impact on health in countries with universal health care than in the US. On the contrary as it happens, as you are probably aware, from enfant mortality rates to diabetes and heart disease (health issues closely related to obesity)  , the US scores far worse than any comparable country in spite of a much higher proportion of national wealth being devoted to health expenditure. It does however beg questions on who really benefits from the existing system, the people in general or the health care "industry" ??

It is not necessarily an "either/or" proposition. Businesses realize it is to their benefit to have a healthy work force, which is why integrated managed care consortiums, such as Kaiser-Permanente, were formed.  And Kaiser-Permanente, like similar organizations, is operated as a "non-profit," so that their outlays approximate their intake.  And it is voluntary.  One can opt out.

What is the profit motivation of a non-profit that negotiates payment rates with its member physicians?

[peky]

Tatyana, you are just giving voice to reason.  You heard all of the propaganda touting how great this would be, and now you have seen the personal impact.  Your standard of living is going to necessarily drop, because of strong arm politics.  I have 3 kids, out own their own, +/- 3 years your age.  I feel very bad for them and the burden you all are being asked to carry.

And it is a burden - an unfair inter-generational burden that will only get worse if it is not stopped dead in its tracks now.

The essence of slavery, Lincoln said, was expressed in the proposition "You work; I'll eat." Upon his election as president, he was besieged by office seekers who drove him to distraction. Lincoln was blunt in his judgment of the great majority of them: They wanted to eat without working. Lincoln saw the demand for the protection of slavery and the demand for government sinecures to be at bottom one and the same. The origin of all constitutional rights, according to Lincoln, was the right that a man had to own himself, and therefore to own the product of his own labor. Government exists to protect that right, and to regulate property only to make it more valuable to its possessors.
- Claremont Institute

This graph shows what I mean:



We need the leadership that existed in 1997 to 2001.  Federal spend of the levels of 2009 to 2012 can not be sustained.  The madness must stop.

The Clermont Institute ...as if it was an unbiased source of facts...just look at their membership...
http://www.claremont.org/about/pageID.286/default.asp

For example the Mattson and Sherrod, Inc. experts at manipulating everything to the benefit of whoever pays them...
In their own words: "Mattson and Sherrod, Inc. has over twenty years of experience assisting clients facing complex civil litigation. Our firm is led by Ph.D. social scientists who specialize in the psychology of courtroom persuasion. Mattson and Sherrod, Inc. offers a variety of professional services in addition to trial strategy development, including jury selection, witness preparation, shadow juries and post-trial jury interviews. Our clients are primarily Fortune 500 companies, but we have also worked with government agencies and non-profit organizations."
http://www.mattsonsherrod.com/

[izzy]

Currently I think the rates are too high for people with low income to people and expecting to pay a fine is ridiculous too. And enforcing the rules is not practical at large scale

[Jamie D]

The Clermont Institute ...as if it was an unbiased source of facts...just look at their membership...
http://www.claremont.org/about/pageID.286/default.asp

For example the Mattson and Sherrod, Inc. experts at manipulating everything to the benefit of whoever pays them...
In their own words: "Mattson and Sherrod, Inc. has over twenty years of experience assisting clients facing complex civil litigation. Our firm is led by Ph.D. social scientists who specialize in the psychology of courtroom persuasion. Mattson and Sherrod, Inc. offers a variety of professional services in addition to trial strategy development, including jury selection, witness preparation, shadow juries and post-trial jury interviews. Our clients are primarily Fortune 500 companies, but we have also worked with government agencies and non-profit organizations."
http://www.mattsonsherrod.com/

Welcome back, Peky.  The source of these data is clearly shown:  historical data through 2012 and CBO estimates through 2021.  There really isn't much that can be argued about these historical data.  Nice try though.