By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - I believe the victims here would appreciate some "socialism" - as in Medicare for all.

Kasz216 on 06 August 2012
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
Kantor said:
Mr Khan said:
HappySqurriel said:
Soleron said:
HappySqurriel said:
While I'm against universal healthcare, having government provided health insurance for all citizens to cover non-preventable illnesses and injuries is reasonable ...

After all, preventable illnesses and injuries represent the bulk of healthcare costs which means this insurance would not be that expensive; and since they couldn't prevent the illness or injury the moral hazzard is fairly minimal.

What is the difference between those two? Do you mean everything except smoking and obesity related illnesses? I don't think people choose to do those things based on whether the state would pay for treatment or not.

No, non-preventable illnesses and injuries are actually relatively rare ... Most illnesses and injuries have a large element of preventability to them.

So you mean a safety net for medical injuries incurred through freak incidents of mass murder or a train crash or something?

Sounds good to me. It would certainly be more politically realistic to pitch than universal care, at least.

Those sorts of things are so rare that it ends up happening anyway, at least in the early stages.

I suppose Obamacare goes some way to ensuring that people have adequate protection for when these sorts of things happen, but I'm not a fan of the methodology. 

Actually... sudden unexpected problems are largely going to be thing Obamacare DOESN'T help... and argueably makes worse.

If "Romneycare" is any prediction for Obamacare... pretty much all the healthcare increase is going to end up being in the expansion of Medicare.

People still won't buy the individual mandate... the tax "penalty" only really falls on those who make a certain amount. (Or so is expected anyway).

Additionally, funding for free clinics and clinics in poor areas are going to have their funding for uninsured patients go down... espiecally areas with lots of illegal aliens.

The group hardest hit by this is expected to be Illegal aliens.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/nyregion/affordable-care-act-reduces-a-fund-for-the-uninsured.html?pagewanted=all

Maybe one would think that it is a kneejerk reaction against Obama that causes opposition to anything he pushes, but it would seem the likes of commentators around Fox News, Newscorp and others would be really happy if this is the fallout.  Anything to get illegal aliens to leave would seem to be a good thing.

I don't quite get your full meaning since I quoted the NYTimes.... but yeah I don't think Foxnews or them would push this issue of the ACA as a problem.

It's just worth noting it's going to make healthcare for people in poorest areas worse.   Not just illegal aliens, but the whole communities in which illegal aliens live.  Sure some of these people might be more likely to get medicare/medicaid... but there won't be any nearby hospitals or free clinics to go to.

There seems to be cracks, holes, and unintended consequences abount that will make this law worse then the status quo.

There is going to need to be a LOT of work to fix the law... and if there was one big problem I've seen with politicians in the US.   It's the inability to admit their legislation has flaws... seeing doing so as political weakness.  (Sure they may say no law is perfect, but are rare to make changes or even point out actual things they find wrong.)

Everybody is either for increasing funding or repealing and not replacing.

 

Nobody is for reform, or replacement.  Which is largey why I tend to go Libretarian on a lot of issues.   Repeal the bad laws, and HOPEFULLY that forces someone on the otherside to come with something new to the table rather then the same flawed law, that legislatiors can now admit privately was flawed and replace, since they no longer have the flawed legislation sticking to them.



Around the Network
HappySqurriel on 06 August 2012

On the topic of Obamacare, one of the biggest flaws with it is the individual mandate (and not for the constitutional reason either) ...

To deal with the increased cost associated with allowing people to get coverage with pre-existing conditions everyone is required to buy insurance or pay a penalty. For individuals earning less than $100,000 per year, and for families earning less than $200,000 per year, the cost of the penalty is far less than the cheapest insurance you can get today; and since you can't be denied health insurance with pre-existing conditions, this means that it makes no sense for the average person to buy insurance. With fewer healthy people buying insurance, and more unhealthy people having insurance, the cost of insurance will skyrocket; and encourage fewer healthy people to buy insurance.

Personally, I would be surprised if health insurance costs don't double within the next 5 years.



MrBubbles on 06 August 2012

if someone is sick or injured their first thought should not be "can i afford this" and it certainly should not be a determining factor at all in someones decision to seek treatment.



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

richardhutnik on 07 August 2012
HappySqurriel said:

On the topic of Obamacare, one of the biggest flaws with it is the individual mandate (and not for the constitutional reason either) ...

To deal with the increased cost associated with allowing people to get coverage with pre-existing conditions everyone is required to buy insurance or pay a penalty. For individuals earning less than $100,000 per year, and for families earning less than $200,000 per year, the cost of the penalty is far less than the cheapest insurance you can get today; and since you can't be denied health insurance with pre-existing conditions, this means that it makes no sense for the average person to buy insurance. With fewer healthy people buying insurance, and more unhealthy people having insurance, the cost of insurance will skyrocket; and encourage fewer healthy people to buy insurance.

Personally, I would be surprised if health insurance costs don't double within the next 5 years.

Health insurance costs have been going up at a rate faster than inflation, and in regards to quality and cost control, the United States sucks compared to the rest of the world.  



Kasz216 on 07 August 2012
richardhutnik said:
HappySqurriel said:

On the topic of Obamacare, one of the biggest flaws with it is the individual mandate (and not for the constitutional reason either) ...

To deal with the increased cost associated with allowing people to get coverage with pre-existing conditions everyone is required to buy insurance or pay a penalty. For individuals earning less than $100,000 per year, and for families earning less than $200,000 per year, the cost of the penalty is far less than the cheapest insurance you can get today; and since you can't be denied health insurance with pre-existing conditions, this means that it makes no sense for the average person to buy insurance. With fewer healthy people buying insurance, and more unhealthy people having insurance, the cost of insurance will skyrocket; and encourage fewer healthy people to buy insurance.

Personally, I would be surprised if health insurance costs don't double within the next 5 years.

Health insurance costs have been going up at a rate faster than inflation, and in regards to quality and cost control, the United States sucks compared to the rest of the world.  

It's worth noting though... Healthcare insurance profit margins are at the bottom of the barrel.

Health Insrance costs are going up, because health insurers costs are going up.