For those interested in looking at a dispassionate presentation of what the "Affordable Care Act" will and will not do, the following article from this week's edition of The Economist might be of interest:

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21587216-centrepiece-barack-obamas-health-reforms-opened-business-week-its-success

The Economist, by the way,  is not exactly a standardbearer of Marxist thinking.

Hugs
Donna

P.S. I got it wrong in my first contribution to this thread, it would appear nearly  50m American's are uninsured ....

The 50.7 million uninsured stat is somewhat misleading, as many of those are healthy young adults who would rather invest their earnings than waste it on unneeded health insurance premiums.

Obamacare's funding model relies on younger, healthier Americans overpaying for insurance in order to subsidize older, sicker people. One can make the argument that this form of generational redistribution is fair and moral, but that's not how the law was sold. Everyone -- including the young -- were promised that their coverage would be less expensive, and that if they were satisfied with their existing healthcare arrangement, it wouldn't change at all. Now that these promises are being laid to waste, many people in the "young invincibles" cohort may decide that it isn't worth signing up for the law's expensive coverage -- especially since they must be treated at hospitals if something goes wrong, then sold "insurance" if they develop a pre-existing condition. Paying the IRS-enforced Obamacare mandate tax would be far cheaper than voluntarily shelling out for Obamacare's rising premiums.

Uh Oh: 36 Percent of Uninsured Americans "Do Not Plan" to Seek Coverage Through Obamacare

Back to Tatyana's original point - we were lied to.

Can someone summaries the arguments for and against in a non-emotional way

I'm having problems getting to the root source of the argument.

I've lived all my life in countries that have universal health care so I'm a bit mystified by what is going on, but the impasse is affecting me through my investments.

Quote from: Cindy on October 06, 2013, 04:43:26 AM
Can someone summaries the arguments for and against in a non-emotional way

I'm having problems getting to the root source of the argument.

I've lived all my life in countries that have universal health care so I'm a bit mystified by what is going on, but the impasse is affecting me through my investments.

Cindy,

The difference between the two is that in universal health care it is funded by the government and they are the health care provider,whereas this is where people are mandated by law to have insurance,whether it is paid for by an individual or the work place.

Quote from: SarahM777 on October 06, 2013, 04:58:02 AM
Cindy,

The difference between the two is that in universal health care it is funded by the government and they are the health care provider,whereas this is where people are mandated by law to have insurance,whether it is paid for by an individual or the work place.

Ahh but most countries universal health care comes from compulsory contribution! I pay, I think 2.5% of my salary for 'free' health care. What is the difference?

Can we focus on something less controversial like abortion, capital punishment or politics? 

Whoops I shall disappear back to the Australian landscape!


Anyone know a bad boomerang joke?

Quote from: Cindy on October 06, 2013, 05:06:03 AM
Ahh but most countries universal health care comes from compulsory contribution! I pay, I think 2.5% of my salary for 'free' health care. What is the difference?

Cindy,
Living in another country with "free" universal health care, I also pay 2,25% of my salary on health insurance but my employer pays 12,8% so the total contribution amounts to 15% of my employment costs.

To get a non-partisan view of the the whole subject, the Economist article I posted the link to is excellent. It is well worth noting that the remarkable inefficiency of the existing system in the U.S. means that health care costs as a % of national wealth are much higher there than in any other comparable country around the world. However as a large part of the US population has no idea how this is managed in other parts of the world and that there are huge vested interests in keeping them ignorant or even deliberately misinformed on the subject , you arrrive at the situation described in the article, an undoubtedly messy reform.

However, the "antis" have so far proposed nothing rather than maintaining a status quo which is still very expensive yet excludes millions from anything other than emergency coverage.

Mind boggling stuff for a neutral observer but, since  politics in the US has become pretty mind boggling anyway, I guess there is little hope of any sort of reasoned debate on the subject any time soon.

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?   

 

Quote from: Cindy on October 06, 2013, 05:06:03 AM
Ahh but most countries universal health care comes from compulsory contribution! I pay, I think 2.5% of my salary for 'free' health care. What is the difference?

I never said that what you have is free. Is that 2.5% across the board for all? Is it more as a tax? Here we are being forced to BUT A PRODUCT. Here you also have to contend with state laws in how some of the federal programs are run. Insurance is one of them. Even within the same state you can have one county in which you will have multiple providers,the next county over you may have only one. One of the quirks in the law is how the state runs medicare. I live in WI. They are removing many people off of it. Once you hit 100% of the poverty level you will no longer be able to be on it (It's called Bagercare) but the law is written that you will only be able to be get help with paying the premiums when you hit 133% of the poverty level if you are under they it seems they assumed the states would expand or keep the people that are under the 133% on medicare. (I am on the border line in being in that doughnut hole only because they factor in that I am self employed and I pay ALL of the social security taxes)

Two if you have medicare it does not mean a doctor will see you. Many of the doctors here are no longer taking medicare patients. One of the quirks of insurance. If doctor A does not take insurance plans A,C and D they do not have see you unless it's an emergency. Some of the insurance companies will NOT cover certain procedures across state lines. There you have a single provider who sets what is covered and what is not,here we have multiple layers of red tape as to what is covered,when it is covered etc etc.

Sorry for an ignorant reply. Isn't it time the whole mess was federalised  and a uniform policy put in place?

Quote from: Cindy on October 06, 2013, 05:56:11 AM
Sorry for an ignorant reply. Isn't it time the whole mess was federalised  and a uniform policy put in place?

Cindy,
How you could possibly suggest such a thing, that is socialisssssmmmmmm!   
Hugs
Donna

Oh dear!

I thought it was practicalism.

Quote from: Cindy on October 06, 2013, 06:24:05 AM
Oh dear!

I thought it was practicalism.

So do I but neither you nor I have been sufficiently exposed to the core values of the founding fathers of the nation to understand how profoundly un-American such practicalism would be and the fact that we live in a far more complex society now than they did back in the late 18th century has no bearing on any of this ...

As you said, oh dear!!!
Donna

Quote from: Cindy on October 06, 2013, 05:56:11 AM
Sorry for an ignorant reply. Isn't it time the whole mess was federalised  and a uniform policy put in place?

It's not a problem Cindy. It's just our system of government and it doesn't always make sense to us or let alone those looking from the outside.

See what most people never get is that it is the very insurance they have that is the cause of the high price of health care. They can trace the beginning of health care going up,the more that is covered that higher that the insurance costs,the higher the services cost,all because you have to have people to process the PAPER WORK. Complete coverage is the most expensive form of insurance coverage. Insurance is NOT really designed to do that. Insurance is really meant to cover the things that one can not. It cause office visits to be 3 to 4 times the cost WITHOUT insurance for those very same things. Major medical and catastrophic was designed to cover the things that are beyond the means of most people.

How to deal with those who can't afford doctors to begin with could be a simple fix.

Or to break it down another way is to look at it this way,when one has a-z coverage and submits a claim,one is asking the insurance co to PAY the bill. (Because it is covered) The doctor has to have someone to submit that claim to the insurance,the insurance Co has people to process that claim,the insurance also has offices and staff and share holders that all get a piece of that. So instead of a single person paying the bill you have multiple levels of people handling that very same bill. That all costs time,effort and money. It's a very inefficient and expensive way to pay a lower dollar bill. And it is no different with a single payer system. Even in a single payer system it's the paper work that is the killer on costs. The more people handling it,the more expensive it gets and at a must faster rate. It's the nature of having a-z coverage.

Quote from: SarahM777 on October 06, 2013, 06:32:45 AM
It's not a problem Cindy. It's just our system of government and it doesn't always make sense to us or let alone those looking from the outside.

See what most people never get is that it is the very insurance they have that is the cause of the high price of health care. They can trace the beginning of health care going up,the more that is covered that higher that the insurance costs,the higher the services cost,all because you have to have people to process the PAPER WORK. Complete coverage is the most expensive form of insurance coverage. Insurance is NOT really designed to do that. Insurance is really meant to cover the things that one can not. It cause office visits to be 3 to 4 times the cost WITHOUT insurance for those very same things. Major medical and catastrophic was designed to cover the things that are beyond the means of most people.

How to deal with those who can't afford doctors to begin with could be a simple fix.

All the outsiders looking in should just read "The Castle" by Franz Kafka and you'll have a clearer picture.

Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on October 06, 2013, 04:02:32 AM
The 50.7 million uninsured stat is somewhat misleading, as many of those are healthy young adults who would rather invest their earnings than waste it on unneeded health insurance premiums.

Obamacare's funding model relies on younger, healthier Americans overpaying for insurance in order to subsidize older, sicker people. One can make the argument that this form of generational redistribution is fair and moral, but that's not how the law was sold. Everyone -- including the young -- were promised that their coverage would be less expensive, and that if they were satisfied with their existing healthcare arrangement, it wouldn't change at all. Now that these promises are being laid to waste, many people in the "young invincibles" cohort may decide that it isn't worth signing up for the law's expensive coverage -- especially since they must be treated at hospitals if something goes wrong, then sold "insurance" if they develop a pre-existing condition. Paying the IRS-enforced Obamacare mandate tax would be far cheaper than voluntarily shelling out for Obamacare's rising premiums.

Uh Oh: 36 Percent of Uninsured Americans "Do Not Plan" to Seek Coverage Through Obamacare

Back to Tatyana's original point - we were lied to.

Yes that 50M number consists mostly of young adults.  Being 25 I can tell you that I don't need to be wasting a lot of money on expensive insurance plans.  I do have insurance through my employer but it's cheap due to my age.  However if they didn't offer insurance I wouldn't feel the need for it.  So yes that number is very misleading.

Quote from: Cindy on October 06, 2013, 04:43:26 AM
Can someone summaries the arguments for and against in a non-emotional way

I'm having problems getting to the root source of the argument.

I've lived all my life in countries that have universal health care so I'm a bit mystified by what is going on, but the impasse is affecting me through my investments.

The problem with the affordable care act is that they rushed it through so fast they didn't have enough time to think it through.  They just through something together real quick and gave it a fancy name.  That's why it's a disaster.  Healthcare is complicated.  They should have taken at least a year to design this law.

Quote from: Tatyana on October 06, 2013, 08:55:31 AM
The problem with the affordable care act is that they rushed it through so fast they didn't have enough time to think it through.  They just through something together real quick and gave it a fancy name.  That's why it's a disaster.  Healthcare is complicated.  They should have taken at least a year to design this law.

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!

Quote from: Donna E on October 06, 2013, 03:38:47 AM
For those interested in looking at a dispassionate presentation of what the "Affordable Care Act" will and will not do, the following article from this week's edition of The Economist might be of interest:

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21587216-centrepiece-barack-obamas-health-reforms-opened-business-week-its-success

The Economist, by the way,  is not exactly a standardbearer of Marxist thinking.

Hugs
Donna

P.S. I got it wrong in my first contribution to this thread, it would appear nearly  50m American's are uninsured ....

The sad truth is that health care is too expensive to provide to everyone who either can't afford it or who simply don't want it.  It's a great idea but it's not practical.  This is why socialism always fails.