Obamacare

capitalism? maybe,but not in my opinion. I'd say more like theft or rape. capitalism is to me more of a want, like I want a new truck and am willing to pay the premium. I don't have to have it but I want it. medivac helicopter ride most of the time you don't have a choice, your unconscious from trama or on life support. and they rape your insurance company for 80 thousand. and I know the "system" charges 80 thousand to your insurance to pay for people who don't have any. but its not right that they have to do that. but I don't know how to fix it either.
 
Jake. said:
But it seems to me a percentage of my tax is going to people that don't work (which it has been already I.e. Medicaid) and now also people that work low paying jobs.
Click to expand...

no. when i was unemployed i was told i do not qualify for Obamacare subsidies. so rest easy knowing that your money isnt going to those who dont work.
 
dodgedog said:
capitalism? maybe,but not in my opinion. I'd say more like theft or rape. capitalism is to me more of a want, like I want a new truck and am willing to pay the premium. I don't have to have it but I want it. medivac helicopter ride most of the time you don't have a choice, your unconscious from trama or on life support. and they rape your insurance company for 80 thousand. and I know the "system" charges 80 thousand to your insurance to pay for people who don't have any. but its not right that they have to do that. but I don't know how to fix it either.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that just because they charge your insurance 80k does not mean they get it. The hospital charged my insurance over 10k for a 2 day stay. They didn't even get 2k at the end. So that medivac may only get 10-15 k. Whcih if your life depends on it" seems reasonable.
 
dodgedog said:
the on board doctor, 100,000?
Click to expand...


Haha...no.

Last time I talked to a heli doc..his PERSONAL malpractice insurance cost him $125,000/year.
Insurance he was required by law to carrry.

And lets not forget the $500,000 school he needed to be that doc.

He better make $300,000 min or there would be no docs...
 
There's almost 314 million people in the US. Lets say 250 million capable and working. Couldn't everyone person pay $100/month for each member of the family (man, wife, 2 kids, $400/month) and that be sufficient?

Seems that more, if not most all, people would find this affordable and jump on board. Instead of now people being forced to pay more than a reasonable amount that will strain some.

I can pay $300/month. But that changes everything. Takes away all my comfort money and breathing room. Which is why I don't have a truck yet. I don't like to live anywhere near a tight budget. I figured I'd wait another year and free up other money before I got a truck payment. Now that will be spent on insurance.

That's just my thoughts on it. The figures mentioned above are not a statement. Just a question for people that have a better understanding than me. Seems if everyone were paying $100/month that's better than only half paying more now. Because I think there is going to be a lot of people that will choose to pay the fine rather than have the insurance.
 
Ron said:
Haha...no.

Last time I talked to a heli doc..his PERSONAL malpractice insurance cost him $125,000/year.
Insurance he was required by law to carrry.

And lets not forget the $500,000 school he needed to be that doc.

He better make $300,000 min or there would be no docs...
Click to expand...



Well then let's hope that doctor can qualify for Obamacare subsidies, otherwise he won't be able to afford the healthcare he's providing because of the insurance he's required to carry to provide the healthcare to the people that get the subsidies. Who's on first?
 
Ron said:
Second we werent talking about health equality..we were talking about top notch world class health care. When you medical treaatments consists of leeches, if everyone gets the leeches you have great equality but poor quality. Same goes for responsive equality. When your entire country is the size of URE guess what, everyone gets responded to about the same.
Click to expand...

See also: Infant mortality statistics.

They make this big deal over how terrible the infant mortality statistics in the US are, but the fact of the matter is that when a child is born in the US at 24 weeks, we spend millions of dollars to try to save its life. Most of the rest of the world calls that it a still birth, because they don't have the money, the technology, or the expertise to behave otherwise.
 
2010nctaco said:
On a side note, I used to work for CMC on the side doing security. They do so much construction and remodeling in order to spend money to show they are a not for profit. It's a scam. They remodeled the er at least once a year.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting point, and is worth restating in different terms.

There has been a lot of talk in this thread about the need for government regulation to control costs. However, the behavior you see here is CREATED AND ENCOURAGED by government regulation: namely, that the hospital has to operate as a not-for-profit, so if there's any money left over at the end of the year, they have to spend it on capital improvements and similar things that are both completely optional and relatively flexible in terms of total cost. So the hospital is constantly in a balancing act between trying to determine how much money will come in this fiscal year, how much money must be spent this fiscal year, and what options are available to them to blow any left-over money before the end of the fiscal year. This balancing act is tremendously more complicated than it seems.
 
Healthcare is so high in this country because of several reasons. We treat illnesses that have little to no chance of a positive outcome without consideration of the costs. We believe that everyone, no matter how slim the chance of survival should be saved. We spend billions on terminal illnesses, geriatrics, pediatrics, self inflicted cancers and cosmetics. Other countries have sense enough to realized a dead baby when they see one and do not spend millions to keep said baby alive just so that it can have a mediocre life with a shortened life span all for the emotional well being of the parents. Who do you think covers the costs of said baby? Other people recieving medical care and insurance companies, that's who. We also treat cancers that are self inflicted in this country like it's our business to save everyone at all costs. You smoke, you get cancer, you recieve whatever treatment you can pay for in cash... Geriatrics also eats a large portion of the healthcare budget. We seem to want to hang on to mom and pops even when we reduce the quality of life for sentimental reasons, most of the time without regard for the patients feelings. At what point do we stop throwing money at terminal illnesses? Comfort of the patient should be paramount. My point is that we are wasting money by not weighing the pro's and con's of where and how we spend money. This may seem harsh but its the truth.
 
jeepmedic said:
Other countries have sense enough to realized a dead baby when they see one and do not spend millions to keep said baby alive just so that it can have a mediocre life with a shortened life span all for the emotional well being of the parents.
Click to expand...

Well, I have good news for you: Obama has stated that one of the goals of Obamacare is to stop wasting money trying to save people's lives. They're just going to let you die. Cheaper that way.
 
shawn said:
Well, I have good news for you: Obama has stated that one of the goals of Obamacare is to stop wasting money trying to save people's lives. They're just going to let you die. Cheaper that way.
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, I hate everything about Obama and his care plan. But we do spend to much on certain cases that have no chance at a positive outcome.
 
There's two ends of this spectrum. There is quality of life and cost of quality of life. There's also quite a bit of assumption (albeit a qualified assumption) that goes on in the medical field that has no business being used in making these kind of decisions. Case in point:

A friend of mine who is a nurse was pregnant with their second child. During her pregnancy, they did testing which came back with a very high likelihood that the child would be born with Downs Syndrome. She was URGED to abort the baby because of the costs associated with raising a Downs Syndrome child, etc. They were trying to make a medical decision purely based on a potential financial and the physical draw having to raise a special needs child. Because this did not align with her Christian beliefs, it was an easy decision for her to say no, but they were very persistent and convincing. The baby was born and is nearing one year old now with no signs of Downs Syndrome or any other disability.

I'm not saying to keep a brain dead individual on machines indefinitely on the off chance that we come up with a cure for their ailment in the future at all costs. I just disagree with doctors making decisions or suggestions purely based on money. That seems against the Hypocritical Oath. I also disagree with a doctor ordering up all sorts of unneeded tests just because he knows the insurance company will pay for them.
 
I agree with parents having children with disabilities and terminal illness patients recieving treatment to prolong thier lives as long as they can pay for it. Just because someone has a child because of thier religious beliefs doesn't mean the taxpayer should foot the bill. Things that are unforseen are just that, but when you make a decision you should have the financial padding to support your decision.
 
jeepmedic said:
I agree with parents having children with disabilities and terminal illness patients recieving treatment to prolong thier lives as long as they can pay for it. Just because someone has a child because of thier religious beliefs doesn't mean the taxpayer should foot the bill. Things that are unforseen are just that, but when you make a decision you should have the financial padding to support your decision.
Click to expand...


The thing is, in this case, they both are middle class working individuals fully insured. The idea of tax payers footing the bill never entered the equation except perhaps in the mind of the medical professional. Yet another assumption.
 
jeepmedic said:
I agree with parents having children with disabilities and terminal illness patients recieving treatment to prolong thier lives as long as they can pay for it. Just because someone has a child because of thier religious beliefs doesn't mean the taxpayer should foot the bill. Things that are unforseen are just that, but when you make a decision you should have the financial padding to support your decision.
Click to expand...

I think this is another example of people conflating "health care" with "health insurance".

Forgiving the reference to "taxpayers", it is exactly proper that health insurance should be used to cover disability, injury, emergency care, etc. No one should be forced to make the choice between whether their child lives or dies based on the cost of care. This is exactly the scenario that insurance is designed to address. To insist otherwise is, frankly, un-American. It is the sort of tyranny of the majority over an individual that the Constitution was written to resist.

However, insurance should not cover birth control pills, prenatal visits, or routine vaginal birth. You save up the $5k to go have a baby at the hospital, you pay in cash. If circumstances require a c-section or emergency NICU care, etc, insurance kicks in.
 
shawn said:
I think this is another example of people conflating "health care" with "health insurance".

Forgiving the reference to "taxpayers", it is exactly proper that health insurance should be used to cover disability, injury, emergency care, etc. No one should be forced to make the choice between whether their child lives or dies based on the cost of care. This is exactly the scenario that insurance is designed to address. To insist otherwise is, frankly, un-American. It is the sort of tyranny of the majority over an individual that the Constitution was written to resist.

However, insurance should not cover birth control pills, prenatal visits, or routine vaginal birth. You save up the $5k to go have a baby at the hospital, you pay in cash. If circumstances require a c-section or emergency NICU care, etc, insurance kicks in.
Click to expand...

How's this to confuse things, but hopefully make it "fair". (I have a 4 year old, a 5 year old and an 8 year old - I'm all the time being told what's NOT fair). When a woman is determined to be pregnant (by a doctor - not an EPT test), the woman is required to declare who she believes the father to be (those leading clandestine lives may have to own up to it) and that father is immediately placed into a plan where a portion of his pay is escrowed up to the $5000 amount which is set aside for the birth costs. If there is a question as to paternity, then a test can be completed and if the payer is deemed to not be the father, the mother will be on the hook for that amount plus interest to repay to the accused father. I imagine the number of unsolved rape cases will increase, but the legal system can deal with that.

If the father is unemployed, the $5000 should be deducted from unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps, free gubment cheese, Cash for Clunkers, or any other government assistance he is already receiving. There needs to be a cost associated with irresponsibly having a child. On the converse, our current system rewards unwed mothers with even more welfare money for each additional child. Seems a little backwards to me.

If our government would spend half their energy holding people accountable for their actions (or inactions), we probably wouldn't need half of the entitlement programs we have and would be in a better fiscal position instead of a broke, borrow-today-and-write-it-off-tomorrow, blame-everyone-else-and-it's-never-my-fault society.

Here's your soapbox back....
 
You can't compel anyone to take a paternity test.
 
shawn said:
You can't compel anyone to take a paternity test.
Click to expand...

It's only needed if the paternity is challenged.

You know, it might even reduce crime - if the father of a girl who was just knocked up by her boyfriend knows that he's going to have to shell out cold hard cash to pay for the baby to be born, it might just keep the teenage girl's father from killing the boyfriend and having to shell out the cost himself.

It's just a pipedream anyway. This is 'Merica... Land of the Freeloader and Home of the Bailout
 
jeepmedic said:
Healthcare is so high in this country because of several reasons. We treat illnesses that have little to no chance of a positive outcome without consideration of the costs. We believe that everyone, no matter how slim the chance of survival should be saved. We spend billions on terminal illnesses, geriatrics, pediatrics, self inflicted cancers and cosmetics. Other countries have sense enough to realized a dead baby when they see one and do not spend millions to keep said baby alive just so that it can have a mediocre life with a shortened life span all for the emotional well being of the parents. Who do you think covers the costs of said baby? Other people recieving medical care and insurance companies, that's who. We also treat cancers that are self inflicted in this country like it's our business to save everyone at all costs. You smoke, you get cancer, you recieve whatever treatment you can pay for in cash... Geriatrics also eats a large portion of the healthcare budget. We seem to want to hang on to mom and pops even when we reduce the quality of life for sentimental reasons, most of the time without regard for the patients feelings. At what point do we stop throwing money at terminal illnesses? Comfort of the patient should be paramount. My point is that we are wasting money by not weighing the pro's and con's of where and how we spend money. This may seem harsh but its the truth.
Click to expand...

You have several valid points in your reply, and I can agree with many of them. The hard part is drawing the line where someone is left to die or be saved. My son was born 2 months early, which is not too bad these days, and would likely have not made it without the care he was provided after birth. He is now 6 and is a normal crazy Kindergardener. There were many children in the NICU that were so much worse off than him. I will choose to try and save them every time.
 
shawn said:
I think this is another example of people conflating "health care" with "health insurance".

Forgiving the reference to "taxpayers", it is exactly proper that health insurance should be used to cover disability, injury, emergency care, etc. No one should be forced to make the choice between whether their child lives or dies based on the cost of care. This is exactly the scenario that insurance is designed to address. To insist otherwise is, frankly, un-American. It is the sort of tyranny of the majority over an individual that the Constitution was written to resist.

However, insurance should not cover birth control pills, prenatal visits, or routine vaginal birth. You save up the $5k to go have a baby at the hospital, you pay in cash. If circumstances require a c-section or emergency NICU care, etc, insurance kicks in.
Click to expand...

Insurance is the key word here...not Healthcare. Under Obummers plan Healthcare is more like the medical version of welfare. I fully believe in recieving benefits you have paid for, but if you do not have insurance or have not paid for certain coverages you should not be entitled to certain treatments. To simplify it you recieve only the healthcare/treatment you have paid or planned for.
 
jeepmedic said:
Insurance is the key word here...not Healthcare. Under Obummers plan Healthcare is more like the medical version of welfare. I fully believe in recieving benefits you have paid for, but if you do not have insurance or have not paid for certain coverages you should not be entitled to certain treatments. To simplify it you recieve only the healthcare/treatment you have paid or planned for.
Click to expand...

It's not clear to me that you understand what Obamacare actually is.
 
shawn said:
It's not clear to me that you understand what Obamacare actually is.
Click to expand...

The Affordable Care Act extends Medicaid, preserves CHIP (Successful children's insurance plan) and simplifies enrollment.
Improves community-based care for disabled Americans and provides States the opportunity to expand home care services for people with long term care needs.
The Act treats all States equally and gives them flexibility to adopt strategies to improve care in coordination with Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.
The Affordable Care Act TITLE II states that it saves the taxpayer money by reducing prescription drug costs and payments to subsidize care for uninsured Americans.
The Act also gives more Americans access to health insurance greatly increasing the number of Americans who have healthcare.


Who do you think is going to pay for this? Please educate me if I am wrong and you have read all 1000+ pages and comprehend it. I'm sure if you do you could enlighten us all.
 
jeepmedic said:
The Affordable Care Act extends Medicaid, preserves CHIP (Successful children's insurance plan) and simplifies enrollment.
Improves community-based care for disabled Americans and provides States the opportunity to expand home care services for people with long term care needs.
The Act treats all States equally and gives them flexibility to adopt strategies to improve care in coordination with Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.
The Affordable Care Act TITLE II states that it saves the taxpayer money by reducing prescription drug costs and payments to subsidize care for uninsured Americans.
The Act also gives more Americans access to health insurance greatly increasing the number of Americans who have healthcare.


Who do you think is going to pay for this? Please educate me if I am wrong and you have read all 1000+ pages and comprehend it. I'm sure if you do you could enlighten us all.
Click to expand...

I'll take "7-11 Super Big Gulp of Kool-Aid" for 1000, Alex. No offense, but that is what it was intended to do. If it actually succeeded then nobody would have cared even if the jacked up website worked or not.
 
Back
Top