Mark me down as a skeptic. I can't think of a scenario where we have gotten more government involvement in anything and better results have been an outcome.
What I would b concerned about if I were one of the lower class people dependent on this is getting an insurance card that either won't be accepted by a doctor (since they are not going to want to deal with this nightmare) or there won't be available doctors since there is going to be a crush on the system.
I also wonder if this all will collapse under its own weight - as apparently the IT systems needed to run the data transfers for the exchanges are nowhere near ready for Jan 1 - and with the regulations being both behind and confusing - if they will be forced to piecemeal it or scrap parts of it.
0
clubdirt,
Mark me down as a skeptic. I can't think of a scenario where we have gotten more government involvement in anything and better results have been an outcome.
What I would b concerned about if I were one of the lower class people dependent on this is getting an insurance card that either won't be accepted by a doctor (since they are not going to want to deal with this nightmare) or there won't be available doctors since there is going to be a crush on the system.
I also wonder if this all will collapse under its own weight - as apparently the IT systems needed to run the data transfers for the exchanges are nowhere near ready for Jan 1 - and with the regulations being both behind and confusing - if they will be forced to piecemeal it or scrap parts of it.
i can't argue with that, particularly the first paragraph. most of what the government touches, it screws up. hard to figure something as big and complicated as health care will be the exception.
0
i can't argue with that, particularly the first paragraph. most of what the government touches, it screws up. hard to figure something as big and complicated as health care will be the exception.
I know, but now that I'm going to pay for your pre-existing condition (which I'll note "pre-existing conditions" are commonly the sum of bad health choices such as over-eating and smoking) via higher insurance premiums, I have to care. And since your kids are driving up my insurances costs, I have to care about them too
The logical extension of all of this government involvement is the government regulating your behavior in order to control costs.
I can't wait to see how you will react to that.
or because insurance was not an option before. something that obamacare is trying to address
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
I know, but now that I'm going to pay for your pre-existing condition (which I'll note "pre-existing conditions" are commonly the sum of bad health choices such as over-eating and smoking) via higher insurance premiums, I have to care. And since your kids are driving up my insurances costs, I have to care about them too
The logical extension of all of this government involvement is the government regulating your behavior in order to control costs.
I can't wait to see how you will react to that.
or because insurance was not an option before. something that obamacare is trying to address
I know, but now that I'm going to pay for your pre-existing condition (which I'll note "pre-existing conditions" are commonly the sum of bad health choices such as over-eating and smoking) via higher insurance premiums, I have to care. And since your kids are driving up my insurances costs, I have to care about them too
The logical extension of all of this government involvement is the government regulating your behavior in order to control costs.
I can't wait to see how you will react to that.
so what then is your stance on regulating these types of behaviors? For example the New York restrictions in soda sizes? This falls directly in line with what you are suggesting here.
Point I am trying to make is that these are incredibly complex issues with no real right answer.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
I know, but now that I'm going to pay for your pre-existing condition (which I'll note "pre-existing conditions" are commonly the sum of bad health choices such as over-eating and smoking) via higher insurance premiums, I have to care. And since your kids are driving up my insurances costs, I have to care about them too
The logical extension of all of this government involvement is the government regulating your behavior in order to control costs.
I can't wait to see how you will react to that.
so what then is your stance on regulating these types of behaviors? For example the New York restrictions in soda sizes? This falls directly in line with what you are suggesting here.
Point I am trying to make is that these are incredibly complex issues with no real right answer.
What I would b concerned about if I were one of the lower class people dependent on this is getting an insurance card that either won't be accepted by a doctor (since they are not going to want to deal with this nightmare) or there won't be available doctors since there is going to be a crush on the system.
Despite doctors discrimination, being insured is better in gaining access to healthcare than being uninsured. Healthcare systems can adapt to accommodating more patients as in other countries with doctor shortages and over 90% of population insured. Most patients receive timely treatment with waiting lists in few specialties. In the future, new doctors may be more receptive to change because of higher incomes from serving greater volume of patients..
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
clubdirt,
What I would b concerned about if I were one of the lower class people dependent on this is getting an insurance card that either won't be accepted by a doctor (since they are not going to want to deal with this nightmare) or there won't be available doctors since there is going to be a crush on the system.
Despite doctors discrimination, being insured is better in gaining access to healthcare than being uninsured. Healthcare systems can adapt to accommodating more patients as in other countries with doctor shortages and over 90% of population insured. Most patients receive timely treatment with waiting lists in few specialties. In the future, new doctors may be more receptive to change because of higher incomes from serving greater volume of patients..
careful here. this forum has gone through numerous reports where this is not only true but is actually the other way around.
Really? I'd like to see that, because I find it odd that public employee unions contribute at a rate of 95%+ to Democrats (and vote at the same rate) yet Republicans would promise people not supporting or voting for them more benefits.
0
Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:
careful here. this forum has gone through numerous reports where this is not only true but is actually the other way around.
Really? I'd like to see that, because I find it odd that public employee unions contribute at a rate of 95%+ to Democrats (and vote at the same rate) yet Republicans would promise people not supporting or voting for them more benefits.
so what then is your stance on regulating these types of behaviors? For example the New York restrictions in soda sizes? This falls directly in line with what you are suggesting here.
Point I am trying to make is that these are incredibly complex issues with no real right answer.
I don't support soda bans or generally speaking the government regulating behavior. If I did, the first thing I'd regulate is happy male sex since it costs $10's of billions a year in government spending and it increases the spread of disease.
While at the aggregate 300 million people + having health care may be "complex" the right answer, without exception, always will be less government.
0
Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:
so what then is your stance on regulating these types of behaviors? For example the New York restrictions in soda sizes? This falls directly in line with what you are suggesting here.
Point I am trying to make is that these are incredibly complex issues with no real right answer.
I don't support soda bans or generally speaking the government regulating behavior. If I did, the first thing I'd regulate is happy male sex since it costs $10's of billions a year in government spending and it increases the spread of disease.
While at the aggregate 300 million people + having health care may be "complex" the right answer, without exception, always will be less government.
Tens of thousands of health care professionals, union workers and community activists hired as "navigators" to help Americans choose Obamacare options starting Oct. 1 could earn $20 an hour or more, according to new regulations issued Wednesday.
The 63-page rule covering navigators, drawn up by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, also said the government will provide free translators for those not fluent in English -- no matter what their native language is.
Tens of thousands of health care professionals, union workers and community activists hired as "navigators" to help Americans choose Obamacare options starting Oct. 1 could earn $20 an hour or more, according to new regulations issued Wednesday.
The 63-page rule covering navigators, drawn up by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, also said the government will provide free translators for those not fluent in English -- no matter what their native language is.
IRS employees have a prominent role in Obamacare, but their union wants no part of the law.
National Taxpayer Employee Union officials are urging members to write their congressional representatives in opposition to receiving coverage through President Obama’s health care law.
The union leaders are providing members with a form letter to send to the congressmen that says “I am very concerned about legislation that has been introduced by Congressman Dave Camp to push federal employees out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and into the insurance exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act.”
The NTEU represents 150,000 federal employees overall, including most of the nearly 100,000 IRS workers.
IRS employees have a prominent role in Obamacare, but their union wants no part of the law.
National Taxpayer Employee Union officials are urging members to write their congressional representatives in opposition to receiving coverage through President Obama’s health care law.
The union leaders are providing members with a form letter to send to the congressmen that says “I am very concerned about legislation that has been introduced by Congressman Dave Camp to push federal employees out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and into the insurance exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act.”
The NTEU represents 150,000 federal employees overall, including most of the nearly 100,000 IRS workers.
Well, why would I support programs that help returning veterans? Didn't they choose their own career paths on their free will? How about those for battered women, raped victims? Most of us sure didn't do the crime and the lists go on. Dang, I have a lot of candidates in helping to pay my mortgage then.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
Well, why don't you pay my mortgage then?
Well, why would I support programs that help returning veterans? Didn't they choose their own career paths on their free will? How about those for battered women, raped victims? Most of us sure didn't do the crime and the lists go on. Dang, I have a lot of candidates in helping to pay my mortgage then.
Well, why would I support programs that help returning veterans? Didn't they choose their own career paths on their free will?
The logic of this is self explanatory. That's a bad example.
But I'd add that there is a ton of waste in these programs, for example:
The Veterans Affairs Department has spent millions on employment call centers so overstaffed that workers only handle a call or two per day, inspectors have discovered. The two centers—operated by a private contractor—handled an average of 2.4 calls per operator daily between December 2011 and December 2012, but instead of cutting back on operators, the VA expanded the hours of operation to 24 hours a day, seven days a week, based on projections from the contractor, Fox reports.
0
Quote Originally Posted by bunny651:
Well, why would I support programs that help returning veterans? Didn't they choose their own career paths on their free will?
The logic of this is self explanatory. That's a bad example.
But I'd add that there is a ton of waste in these programs, for example:
The Veterans Affairs Department has spent millions on employment call centers so overstaffed that workers only handle a call or two per day, inspectors have discovered. The two centers—operated by a private contractor—handled an average of 2.4 calls per operator daily between December 2011 and December 2012, but instead of cutting back on operators, the VA expanded the hours of operation to 24 hours a day, seven days a week, based on projections from the contractor, Fox reports.
Despite doctors discrimination, being insured is better in gaining access to healthcare than being uninsured. Healthcare systems can adapt to accommodating more patients as in other countries with doctor shortages and over 90% of population insured. Most patients receive timely treatment with waiting lists in few specialties. In the future, new doctors may be more receptive to change because of higher incomes from serving greater volume of patients..
1. There is no evidence suggesting that having an ObamaCare insurance card will better enable you to gain access to actual medical treatment, nor is there any evidence that having insurance equals better health outcomes.
2. The CBO projects that with ObamaCare, the # of uninsured in the US will not fall below 30 million by 2023 (see: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44190_EffectsAffordableCareActHealthInsuranceCoverage_2.pdf)
3. The CBO projects 7 million people will lose employer sponsored health insurance due to ObamaCare (see the "employment based" line in the link above)
4. ObamaCare does nothing to contain health spending or costs. The CBO has increased the cost estimate
5. Doctors are dropping Medicare patients left & right and are not at all interested in treating people with Medicaid. See:
6. ObamaCare is going to force a bunch of people into Medicaid.
Per # 5 above, how do you think that is going to work out for your theory that these people will see a doctor?
0
Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:
Despite doctors discrimination, being insured is better in gaining access to healthcare than being uninsured. Healthcare systems can adapt to accommodating more patients as in other countries with doctor shortages and over 90% of population insured. Most patients receive timely treatment with waiting lists in few specialties. In the future, new doctors may be more receptive to change because of higher incomes from serving greater volume of patients..
1. There is no evidence suggesting that having an ObamaCare insurance card will better enable you to gain access to actual medical treatment, nor is there any evidence that having insurance equals better health outcomes.
2. The CBO projects that with ObamaCare, the # of uninsured in the US will not fall below 30 million by 2023 (see: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44190_EffectsAffordableCareActHealthInsuranceCoverage_2.pdf)
3. The CBO projects 7 million people will lose employer sponsored health insurance due to ObamaCare (see the "employment based" line in the link above)
4. ObamaCare does nothing to contain health spending or costs. The CBO has increased the cost estimate
5. Doctors are dropping Medicare patients left & right and are not at all interested in treating people with Medicaid. See:
The logic of this is self explanatory. That's a bad example.
But I'd add that there is a ton of waste in these programs, for example:
The Veterans Affairs Department has spent millions on employment call centers so overstaffed that workers only handle a call or two per day, inspectors have discovered. The two centers—operated by a private contractor—handled an average of 2.4 calls per operator daily between December 2011 and December 2012, but instead of cutting back on operators, the VA expanded the hours of operation to 24 hours a day, seven days a week, based on projections from the contractor, Fox reports.
Not really according to your view. How about the others I've mentioned, too?
I don't doubt there will be waste in any program. It happens on every private sector, let alone on government so we must address them. Who you think are the people been footing the bills for the uninsured in the hospitals anyways?
There are a lot of things I don't like about the bill and I am all ears for alternatives but we must doing something in our health care system. Case in point, a friend of mine is a recovering cancer patient, her premium went from a little over $200/month to over $800/month in 5 years. I guess it's all inflation?
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
The logic of this is self explanatory. That's a bad example.
But I'd add that there is a ton of waste in these programs, for example:
The Veterans Affairs Department has spent millions on employment call centers so overstaffed that workers only handle a call or two per day, inspectors have discovered. The two centers—operated by a private contractor—handled an average of 2.4 calls per operator daily between December 2011 and December 2012, but instead of cutting back on operators, the VA expanded the hours of operation to 24 hours a day, seven days a week, based on projections from the contractor, Fox reports.
Not really according to your view. How about the others I've mentioned, too?
I don't doubt there will be waste in any program. It happens on every private sector, let alone on government so we must address them. Who you think are the people been footing the bills for the uninsured in the hospitals anyways?
There are a lot of things I don't like about the bill and I am all ears for alternatives but we must doing something in our health care system. Case in point, a friend of mine is a recovering cancer patient, her premium went from a little over $200/month to over $800/month in 5 years. I guess it's all inflation?
I don't think there should be federal spending on anything you mentioned except for paying for injured combat vets medical treatment and insurance.
Just as I don't think anyone should have to help subsidize someone buying a car they can't afford, I don't think I should subsidize someone else's medical insurance. That idea sounds as crazy to me as me asking someone else to pay my mortgage(s).
I'd also add that I'd end the "free rider" problem of people showing up in emergency rooms for medical treatment by ending any government payment or responsibility for it. To me, saying that a good answer to that issue is to have the government spend a trillion dollars more per year (it will be more than that) than it already is, force everyone to buy insurance, and as an outcome have 7 million people lose their employer coverage along the way, seems like a bad idea.
While I may not have answers to every scenario, the basic principle that less government involvement the better carries the day.
0
bunny,
I don't think there should be federal spending on anything you mentioned except for paying for injured combat vets medical treatment and insurance.
Just as I don't think anyone should have to help subsidize someone buying a car they can't afford, I don't think I should subsidize someone else's medical insurance. That idea sounds as crazy to me as me asking someone else to pay my mortgage(s).
I'd also add that I'd end the "free rider" problem of people showing up in emergency rooms for medical treatment by ending any government payment or responsibility for it. To me, saying that a good answer to that issue is to have the government spend a trillion dollars more per year (it will be more than that) than it already is, force everyone to buy insurance, and as an outcome have 7 million people lose their employer coverage along the way, seems like a bad idea.
While I may not have answers to every scenario, the basic principle that less government involvement the better carries the day.
You've got that right Clubhouse. Million's of children now have health care. They are the ones that need it, old farts like me need not have a freaking colonoscopy at the expense of the middle class.
Totally wrong. You'll have coverage (though 30,000,000 won't, the same as before) which is far different than care. All that for a measly $3 T.
0
Quote Originally Posted by don juan:
You've got that right Clubhouse. Million's of children now have health care. They are the ones that need it, old farts like me need not have a freaking colonoscopy at the expense of the middle class.
Totally wrong. You'll have coverage (though 30,000,000 won't, the same as before) which is far different than care. All that for a measly $3 T.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
