• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Obama Care Yet Again

They are, my mother in law was refused dyalisis. I had a friend that needed stitches, refused. It happens everyday. And it is funny that you say it is off topic, because it is pretty much on topic. You just dont like having your own examples turned around on you.

Now, people are rfused hc on a non emergency basis every day. How many people get cancer, and dont find out about it till the later stages? Those people MAY end up getting care, but it is a lot more expensive at that point. Would it not make more sense to spread the cost of the cheaper treatment around, over the way more expensive treatment?
 
It happens everyday, ALL ACROSS AMERICA. Yeah, there is a law that says that a hospital must treat you if it is life threatening. But there is no law saying they have to give acute care. Now address the rest of the post? The one about how much financial sense it makes to not give preventative care, instead waiting till the problem costs exponentially more, to spread that cost around.
 
It happens everyday, ALL ACROSS AMERICA. Yeah, there is a law that says that a hospital must treat you if it is life threatening. But there is no law saying they have to give acute care. Now address the rest of the post? The one about how much financial sense it makes to not give preventative care, instead waiting till the problem costs exponentially more, to spread that cost around.

i have nothing against preventative care, but define what you mean.
yearly physicals? monthly? pay those out of pocket

the cost of insurance could simply be lowered with high deductible plans (say 5k) you would have to pay for "preventative care"
many people already elect to do this. the money the save each year more then covers thier preventative care.

people are overdependent on health care. no one wants to pay anything out of pocket. it should not be used every time you get the sniffles.
 
Aren't over half of bankruptcies in the US medical related?
Correct me if I'm wrong

from a link i posted

One important study, published in March, 2005, has documented the financial impact medical bills have on Americans. Harvard professors Elizabeth Warren, David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, found that "medical problems contribute to about half of all (personal) bankruptcies" in this country.

not sure of the current numbers as the laws have changed since then
 
rofl, nope, thats my job. help care for family when they cant.

i shouldnt have to help for your family though, thats your job

or for those 20million illegal immigrants, or the crackhead that doesnt work, ect ect

When you couldn't pay, the hospital had to eat it, driving up costs for everyone else.

How ironic that you are no better than the "20 million illegal immigrants and freeloading crackheads" that you despise.

Either live by your principles or stop spouting them like gospel.

I wish your father and your cousin the best.
 
wait a second........did i just read that mdram's dad and cousin didn't have health insurance? admitted for treatment for cancer? and the bill was written off? which leads me to believe that someone had to file fo bankruptcy and the bills had to have been sent to collections....
 
wait a second........did i just read that mdram's ad and cousin didn'thave health insurance? admitted for treatment for cancer? and the bill was written off? which leads me to believe that someone had to fle fo bankruptcy and the bills had to have been sent to collections....

not sure about the final details of either one. it was all handled by the lawyers after dads death(but i did get to keep my clothes), cousin is still undergoing treatment
 
not sure about the final details of either one. it was all handled by the lawyers after dads death(but i did get to keep my clothes), cousin is still undergoing treatment

Sorry about your father, wish the best for your cousin.
 
thanks for your thoughts

and now your thinking how can someone thats seen this side still be against uhc?

well i believe people should provide for themselves, not depend on government to do it for them. the government should only be there when things get bad to provide temporay assistance, or help those that cant help themselves (ex: handicapped, elderly).
people have become to dependent on handouts, and it needs to be stopped someplace. dont keep giving and giving, its not sustainable, eventually you cant take enough to give everything you have promised. we have reached that point.
 
thanks for your thoughts

and now your thinking how can someone thats seen this side still be against uhc?

well i believe people should provide for themselves, not depend on government to do it for them. the government should only be there when things get bad to provide temporay assistance, or help those that cant help themselves (ex: handicapped, elderly).
people have become to dependent on handouts, and it needs to be stopped someplace. dont keep giving and giving, its not sustainable, eventually you cant take enough to give everything you have promised. we have reached that point.
But under (non socialist) UHC people would still be dependant on themselves
They would just be forced to pay insurance, while those who do not have the means would have it subsidized

Ultimately people are still dependant on themselves to pay the insurance, unlike in a socialist system


sorry to hear about your father btw, best wishes to your cousin
 
thanks for your thoughts

and now your thinking how can someone thats seen this side still be against uhc?

well i believe people should provide for themselves, not depend on government to do it for them. the government should only be there when things get bad to provide temporay assistance, or help those that cant help themselves (ex: handicapped, elderly).
people have become to dependent on handouts, and it needs to be stopped someplace. dont keep giving and giving, its not sustainable, eventually you cant take enough to give everything you have promised. we have reached that point.

so darwinism
 
But under (non socialist) UHC people would still be dependant on themselves
They would just be forced to pay insurance, while those who do not have the means would have it subsidized

Ultimately people are still dependant on themselves to pay the insurance, unlike in a socialist system


sorry to hear about your father btw, best wishes to your cousin

And there you have it.
 
They are, my mother in law was refused dyalisis. I had a friend that needed stitches, refused. It happens everyday. And it is funny that you say it is off topic, because it is pretty much on topic. You just dont like having your own examples turned around on you.

Now, people are rfused hc on a non emergency basis every day. How many people get cancer, and dont find out about it till the later stages? Those people MAY end up getting care, but it is a lot more expensive at that point. Would it not make more sense to spread the cost of the cheaper treatment around, over the way more expensive treatment?


The issue as I see it is not UHC but how it is being implemented and forced down our collective throats. It is largely unconstitutional and even Obama does not believe in the plan he signed into law. You apparently think it is a good idea. Have you read it?


Hence the thread about Obamacare waivers.


We have turned a bad idea into an unfair plan that will not do what it was written to do and if a business owner does not want to play, there are ways to simply avoid it. Through waivers or by simply dropping their employee plans.



When the plan (if it remains) is in place and running at full speed, you will see hospitals overloaded with patients that do not need emergency care. And they must serve these patients or risk being sued.


Doctors are increasingly not taking Medicare patients and this is another barrier to truly "free" health care. We will simply end up with a complex and bloated plan that adds costs and reduces the available care to the masses. The plan will cost you money and more money in the form of higher taxes. And you will be paying for me and everyone else.


You might not be given a bill but you still pay. And if I did not have HC, you would pay for me, my family, and illegals that come here illegally.

Lets face it, life is not fair and we simply cannot care for everyone.


There are good proposals out there designed to help clean up the system and lower costs across the board. It does not mean heart transplants for everyone or the "right" to visit the hospital every time you get the sniffles.

The current Obamacare invites tremendous abuse and that drives up costs.


The bean counters in Washington might simply tell your father he cannot be treated for dialysis or something else because of his age. The term "Death Panels" is unfortunate, but quite accurate.


Sorry for your family issues, but some will suffer. It is not fair and some will suffer because they cannot afford top drawer care. We simply cannot afford to treat everyone for every problem. Sorry, but if you or your family cannot afford the cost, they will suffer. And deciding who should be cared for and who suffers is tough.


Frankly, and take no offense, but my family is more important to me than your family. And most certainly, your family is more important to you than mine, in your view. Nothing wrong with self-interest.


I do not know what the solution is. We need to make changes to the system to lower costs and that is clearly possible. But not today because the current administration is heavily invested in the HC plan. Hopefully, we will set things straight with the next administration.


Here is what I suggest: download the health care plan; it is some 2,000 pages and have a look see. Then, if you think it is a great idea, get back to me. It will scare the hell out of most reasonable people.
 
thanks for your thoughts

and now your thinking how can someone thats seen this side still be against uhc?

well i believe people should provide for themselves, not depend on government to do it for them. the government should only be there when things get bad to provide temporay assistance, or help those that cant help themselves (ex: handicapped, elderly).
people have become to dependent on handouts, and it needs to be stopped someplace. dont keep giving and giving, its not sustainable, eventually you cant take enough to give everything you have promised. we have reached that point.

The way insurance is supposed to work is that many people pay to cover the losses of a few. In other words we pool our resources to help and protect each other. That what civil societies do.

The way it really works is insurance companies cherry pick healthy people, charge exorbitant rates, deny care for any excuse they can make up ("experimental", "pre-existing condition", "non-standard treatment", "out-of-network", etc.) and generally do everything they can to maximize their profit at the expense of those they cover (as well as those they do not). Insurance companies are death panels, deciding whether or not you can afford care (with their rates) and whether or not you will receive care (with their practices and policies). They would rather spend money denying you care than spend money on your care.

UHC (in principle) simply eliminates the profit factor and makes care available to all. Everyone would pay into universal care and everyone would benefit. This is not a handout.

What you call Obamacare is insurance corporation legislation designed to get them 60 million new customers with government promises to pay for their them. This is not UHC, it is a scam, and I am just as strongly against it as you are, if not more so.
 
UHC (in principle) simply eliminates the profit factor and makes care available to all.

In many cases it does not eliminate the profit factor.
There are of course not for profit insurers, but there are for profit ones too in countries with a private insurance UHC system (eg the Netherlands)
 
Bob, Obamacare is not Universal HeathCare as far as I know (did something change this week?)

Obamacare is indeed UHC. It has been described this way since it was proposed; argued over, passed by people that blindly signed it, and became the law of the land. Some people agree with you in that OC is not really UHC but it is indeed UHC. A giant free for all.

The problem is in how some confuse Obamacare with what they only think, will, or should be how it works or will work and that is Universal Care for everyone. Obama's plan is designed to be universal single payer (actually, tens of millions of payers) plan operated by our ever-so efficient government.

Here is what I think should be done//changed/implimented:

1- Allow insurance companies to sell insurance across state lines and compete for the consumer's dollars. Selling across state lines works for other kinds of insurance

2- Eliminate silly state mandates

3- Reform Tort Law so doctors do not have to play Lawyer Medicine. As it is now, if you arrive complaining of a cold and later, your autopsy shows that you had some rare disease that would never be tested for, your doctor is sued and likely, the insurance company settles out of court. This has to end because it ruins doctors and costs us all money

4- Mandate changes that can affect what we pay for care. Everyone here has likely seen those 100 page bills that itemize everything like $45.00 Tylenol pills and $30.00 Band Aids. We should be able to dispute these charges and pay something a tad more reasonable

5- Make it impossible for insurance companies to suddenly drop your coverage unless they are clearly justified. After years of paying premiums, I do not want to be told that my condition was 'pre-existing' or not covered unless it is fair and reasonable to do so. If you lied about smoking and you come down with lung cancer, you should not be covered.

These are changes that those that fully understand the issue know must be done. If we did these things, overall costs would drop. The problem is everyone things the law is good, but they have not read the plan.

Bob
 
whynot force people to buy cars? cable tv? electricity? ect ect

In Utah, you are required by law to have water as well as electrical service. It is not a choice. Fortunately, not required to own a car or have cable TV service.

Yet.

Bob
 
The way insurance is supposed to work is that many people pay to cover the losses of a few. In other words we pool our resources to help and protect each other. That what civil societies do.

Did you know that come 2014, there will be a penalty of 2.5% or $695.00 which ever is greater for not having insurance? And the IRS has been tasked with collection. So if you earn $100,000.00 per year and your employer drops your plan or tries to change it, you will be required to find insurance ASAP or you are penalized $2500.00 on top of state and federal taxes.

Did you know that part of the law requires what they call "Home Visits" by Social Services? You will likely be visited (they say it is voluntary) if you served in the Armed Forces, are a tobacco user, or if you have children with low student achievement scores?

Did you know that the law allows special interest groups to establish health care clinics inside public schools, like Planned Parenthood, for example. So what happens if a nurse assumes your child is mistreated? Does Social Services arrive and forever, you are monitored by Big Brother?

Employers can expect an 8% increase in their HC costs and doctors are starting to refuse seeing Medicare patients. My view is they will be forced to seeing them at some point; the HC Bill already plans for that.

All in all, the wealthy will survive and the poor will suffer even more. What will likely happen is exactly what the plan was designed to prevent.

If your employer currently offers great health insurance to its employees and that insurance would normally be judged too expensive for Joe Average, your employee faces additional tax penalties for providing excellent care. So your employer simply changes your plan and you loose some coverage.

Did you know that Congress repealed the anti-trust exemption for health insurance?

Did you know that a provision in the House-passed plan will remove billions from privately run Medicare plans that emphasize wellness?

Did you know that those that voted yes and passed the law did not bother to read either version of the bill before agreeing to it? Or the amendments? Especially the rules that make it mandatory, yet easily avoided with wavers?

Lots to be concerned about to be sure.

Bob
 

Attachments

  • don't tread.jpg
    don't tread.jpg
    2.4 KB · Views: 65
Back
Top Bottom